Hi, I was remembering a discussion, we had a few weeks ago. So I'm forwarding a maybe interesting posting of the Debian legal mailing list.
Regards, Fran Begin forwarded message: Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2008 22:40:55 +0100 From: Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: GPL v2/v3 ? On Thu, 6 Mar 2008 09:38:21 +0100 Miriam Ruiz wrote: > 2008/3/6, Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > In my opinion, the decision boils down to: > > > > 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 > > There's another possibility: dual-licensing your code under the GPLv2 > only and the GPLv3 only. You're right. That would be the following case: o if you want to slightly enhance compatibility with existing licenses *and* you don't mind seeing your copyleft weakened by some clauses of the GNU GPL v3, *but* you don't trust the FSF to publish good future versions (v4, v5, ...) of the GNU GPL, then you may choose a "v2 or v3" approach -- Frank Lanitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
pgpFyuNBT1qtk.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Geany mailing list [email protected] http://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany
