Thanks for your insight into Spanish law Miry & Steve. I did wonder what was wrong with the term "distribution" when v3 was written. I don't think this will put me off the GPL v2 though.
> o if you want to enhance compatibility *and* you trust the FSF to > keep the promise that future versions of the GNU GPL will be "similar > in spirit to the present version"[2][3], then you may choose a "v2 or > later" approach > > o if you want to enhance compatibility *and* you don't mind seeing > your copyleft more or less weakened (or even completely destroyed) by > successive versions of the GNU GPL, then you may choose a "v2 or later" > approach[4] > > o if don't mind reducing compatibility *and* you want a strong and > certain copyleft (while not trusting the FSF to keep the spirit of the > GNU GPL v2 in successive versions), then you should choose a "v2 only" > approach Yes I realised that the legal protection is "only as strong as the weakest [version]" in the case of multiple-licensing, and that using a "... or later version" type license required trust. I think, perhaps then, the sensible choice is to use a GPL v2 only license until a more satisfactory version is released or I am forced to use a more compatible license. I enjoyed reading your critical comments [1] btw. I had read comments on section 5(d) before and didn't much like it. I was wondering how exactly it would have to be implemented in a GUI program (e.g. just hide entries away in menus or perhaps show on a splash screen), but I don't think I'll have to worry about this now anyway. Thank you all for the help, Diggory [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2007/06/msg00267.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
