On 12 April 2010 04:58, Paul Sundvall <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Also, I noticed all functions are released under GPL 2 and it says >>> that I could release them under GPL 2 or higher. Is there any problems >>> with changing it to GPL 3? >> >> I think this is because there hasn't been any real changes to this >> package for a long time. I think it is just fine to change the license >> to "GPL v3 or later". >> >> Søren > > If the original license is "GPL 2 or higher" I guess there are no > problem switching to GPL v3. But does that give the right to change the > license to GPL 3 or higher? I do not think so. > > In general, I think it is wise to option to upgrade the license version > by using the formulation "...or later (at your option)" to make the > licensing situation clear. That means the user can choose license. > Otherwise, one does not know which license is actually used. > > paul
My bad. The original actually says "version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version", I'm just not very good with such nuances. But I only planned on changing the number 2 to a 3, so I think all is good. Carnë Draug ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Download Intel® Parallel Studio Eval Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance. See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev _______________________________________________ Octave-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/octave-dev
