On Thu, 2014-12-25 at 13:00 -0500, Hendrik Boom wrote: > On Wed, Dec 24, 2014 at 12:44:26AM -0500, Jude Nelson wrote: > > Hi T.J., sorry this is late--this thread got lost in my inbox. > > > > Thank you for your feedback regarding GPLv3. > > The *big* problem with GPLv3 is that it is incompatible with GPLv2. > It *is* compatible with GPL2+, but there is a lot of software that is > licenced GPL2 without the "or any later version" clause. > > This may, of course, be considered a problem with GPL2, but in the > present software ecology it will make GPL3 code harder to adopt. > > I will continue to licence any of my GPL software as GPL2+.
The best would be to use GPL3+ to avoid tivoization. In case you want to enable commercial use (modifications might not be given back) you can dual license it, e.g. adding X11 (wrongly MIT) or 2- or 3-clause BSD. See https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html _______________________________________________ Dng mailing list [email protected] https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
