On Tue, Jul 24, 2007 at 07:20:26PM +0100, ott wrote: > Mark, Hi ott,
> 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. That's one of the problems I see with the GPL 2 it seems to give this confusion. I interpret the license differently. > "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. I agree that a change of license would require a permission from _every_ contributor. And like I said before we discussed it on IRC and concluded Wesnoth is 'GPL 2 only', hence my change. The goal of the change was to make things _clear_ and _not_ to relicense without asking _every_ contributor. It seems we have at least two people who are under the impression that Wesnoth is distributed under 'GPL 2 or any later version'. I'm relative new to Wesnoth so I don't know whether there have been discussions about the license in the past, so if there were please replay here. I do like to get the license clear and update the headers accordingly. The only problem I see is that several people might have been under the impression that they contributed to a 'GPL 2 only' project and others to a 'GPL 2 or any later version'. Regards, Mark de Wever aka Mordante/SkeletonCrew _______________________________________________ Wesnoth-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/wesnoth-dev
