Am 30.08.2010 12:03, schrieb Rob Myers:
On 08/30/2010 09:21 AM, jh wrote:
Some of the longest running and most successful free software projects
did not substantially *) change their license. Ever. And are doing just
fine.
>
*) apart from subtle upgrades like GPL vX to GPL v(X+1)
Some people think that GPL upgrades aren't subtle, or prefer GPL 2 to
GPL 3, or cannot upgrade even if they wanted to. The Linux kernel is a
good example of all three.
The majority (> 50%) of GPL projects are now GPL 3. Which is hardly an
argument against allowing relicencing.
Even if you don't consider the changes from GPL v2 vs. v3 to be subtle
(which were just an example anyway, I could have picked several other
examples) you will have to concede that those changes don't
fundamentally change the spirit of the license. But this fundamental
change is what's currently at stake with section 3 of the CTs.
Joerg
_______________________________________________
legal-talk mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
