[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > Brad Douglas wrote: > > > However, we may want to augment the > > > statement to say "(v2)" instead of, "(>=v2)". GPLv3 exists and there > > > has been no consensus on using it (although, the GRASS statement implies > > > we already do). > > > Glynn Clements > > If we were to remove the "or any later version" text, we would quickly > > forfeit the right to subsequently adopt a later version, as any > > contributions would be assumed to be licensed under "v2 only" terms. > > If we ever wanted (or needed[1]) to adopt a later version, we would > > have to obtain explicit consent to do so. > > One option is for authors to donate their code to a foundation (is there > a GRASS foundation or trust?)
There's OSGeo, but it's rather an unknown quantity at present. Some of us would rather wait until it has been "tested". > that has the power to re-release the code > under an appropriate liscence. This way, if something unfortunate were > to happen to an author, the foundation would be able to gracefully handle > software liscencing issues in the future. Or you can stick with "version 2 or later", which gives the FSF the power to re-license the code by releasing new versions of the GPL. If you insist upon a specific version, you're essentially giving the legal system the power to re-license the code through rulings on the interpretation and/or validity of specific portions of the GPL. -- Glynn Clements <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> _______________________________________________ grass-dev mailing list grass-dev@grass.itc.it http://grass.itc.it/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev
