Hi Paul, On Fri, 2008-07-11 at 12:46 -0400, Paul Smith wrote: > Once you start accepting a significant amount of code without copyright > assignment, it will be difficult to the point of impossibility to change > the license again.
Yes. Hence (in part) the choice of a more liberal / lesser license: that hopefully provides some safeguards here against future changes. > We can only assume that the FSF will, in the future, come out with a > GPLv4 and that this license will have its own set of incompatibilities > with the existing GPLv2 and GPLv3 licenses (ditto for LGPL of course). Sure; but it seems unlikely that the LGPLv4 will be incompatible with the LGPLv3 or v2 - the 'lesser' nature of course allow even proprietary software to be linked to these. > IMO, if a software project is going to accept code without assignment > then they really should be using the "LGPLvX or later" license > structure, rather than providing a list of acceptable licenses. Sure - but there are real problems persuading lawyers to license code under a license that doesn't yet exist & that they havn't read :-) HTH, Michael. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot _______________________________________________ Evolution-hackers mailing list Evolutionemail@example.com http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers