Yes, upon consideration, until the 'GPL3 controversy' came along, I (and I think most other developers) would have always said that it is under 'GPL 2 or later'.
We probably naven't been clear enough about this, and mostly just said it is "under the GPL". I think the "default" when one says this is for it to be the current version of the GPL or later. As such I feel that Wesnoth is licensed under 'GPL 2 or later', and that we should change things to reflect this. David Quoting ott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Mark, > > On Tue, Jul 24, 2007 at 06:21:25PM +0200, you wrote: >> That part is beyond the terms and conditions of the license, but I've >> read enough discussions about it (on lkml). Personally, and I'm no >> laywer nor have I consulted one, I read the license as >> 'GPL 2 only unless explicitly stated otherwise'. > > I would like to clearly state my objection here. All the work I have > done on the project has been under the understanding that the standard > "GPL2 or later" license applied. "GPL2 only" is in my view a change of > license (and quite non-standard), and as such would seem to need > permission from every contributor. > > -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > _______________________________________________ > Wesnoth-dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/wesnoth-dev > _______________________________________________ Wesnoth-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/wesnoth-dev
