In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
John-Mark Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Mon, 2 Jul 2007, Matthew Hambley wrote:
>
>> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> John-Mark Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> 2) Come to an agreement about whether to permit the user to relicense
>>> the software under future GPL versions. For reference, GPL version 3
>>> has been recently released. This may be found at
>>> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.html
>>
> > I've had a quick look at the link provided above and of course it's all
> > dense legal verbiage. Does anyone have a link to a summary of the
> > differences between GPLv2 and GPLv3? I withhold my comments until I
> > have a better understanding of what this is about.
>
> I'm not aware that there is such a summary. The best I can provide is the
> following:
I've now spent some time trying to find out about GPLv3 and have found very
little outside ideological slagging. What I have determined is that GPLv3
adds some restrictions over v2. In light of this I don't think it would be
wise to agree to something I don't understand but harbour some suspicion
of.
So put me down as "No" for the "upgradable" licence but be aware that if
there is a strong body of feeling for it then I am always willing to
reconsider my position in light of new information.
--
(\/)atthew )-(ambley [ Public key: C991137B ]
