> 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.
Without the "or later clause" it wouldn't really be a GNU project which
isn't much of an alternative.
In the worst case, if it turns out the GPLv4 will be a terrible licence
someone will just have to fork GIMP when we move to GPLv4+ and maintain
a GPLv3 version of GIMP.
Gimp-developer mailing list