On Fri, 2010-02-19 at 16:34 +0100, Christian Persch wrote: > > Really? The FSF *recommends* that you add the "or later" clause; see > e.g. [1]. > > And if you are concerned about what the later [L]GPL version will say, > you should at least keep open the possibility to use it, by > designating > a trusted proxy to make the licence upgrade decision, like KDE does by > deferring this to the KDE eV membership in their licensing policy[2]. > You definitly don't need copyright assignment for this. IMHO Gnome > ought to have a similar policy here.
I know the FSF recommends this, but seriously.. if you ever get a chance to ask one of their lawyers personally, like off the record, their opinion you might get a different response. I know someone who did. :) But anyway, I'm don't want to derail this discussion with this. I just wanted to point out that LGPL 2.1/3 doesn't strike me as strange, and in fact that's exactly what I would have chosen if it were up to me for a personal project of my own. / Cody _______________________________________________ desktop-devel-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
