2009/1/14 gg <g...@catking.net>:
> I've always thought the ".. or later" clause in some gpl wording to be a
> bit of an odd way to licence something.
> While FSF seems to be doing a solid job until now I always worry about
> future GPLs getting knobbbled the way PGP did.
> If GIMP project decides to move to v3 would it be wisest to state
> specifically v3 rather than some arbitary unknown "or later"? This seems
> an unnecessary risk.
Consider that if they hadn't used this language for the current v2 or
later license, it would be largely impossible to switch to v3 at this
point, as formal permission would need to be gotten from _all_
copyright owners (or parts of GIMP would have to be rewritten).
Gimp-developer mailing list