gg wrote:
Martin Nordholts wrote:
gg wrote:
Without the or later clause it wouldn't really be a GNU project which
isn't much of an alternative.
I don't quite follow. In what way does the idea GNU project oblige or
later?
My statement was under the assumption that GNU
---BeginMessage---
Marcus Heese wrote:
I've just contributed a few lines, too. However, I'm fine with GPLv3, too...
I
was wondering a long time that the GIMP hasn't changed the license yet.
And I hope that the GIMP will stay with GPL in the future, too. Otherwise the
developers should
2009/1/14 gg g...@catking.net:
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
gg wrote:
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
