On Tue, Jul 24, 2007 at 02:46:48PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > 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.
(I read this mail after my reply to ott's mail.) If the orginal intent was to license 'GPL 2 or any later version' then I think the headers should be updated accoringly, but I want to wait a little while before doing that since it might be that some developers were under the impression that they contributed to 'GPL 2 only' project. I want to have the headers updated before the next release, due in about 3 weeks according to the release schedule. I was under the impression I contributed to a 'GPL 2 only' project but if Wesnoth was a 'GPL 2 or any later version' I also would have contributed. So if we're going to state 'GPL 2 or any later version' I don't mind to put my code under that license as well. Regards, Mark _______________________________________________ Wesnoth-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/wesnoth-dev
