> zooko <at> zooko.com wrote: > > If it *is* your intention to forbid this hypothetical person from > > distributing the resulting program, then you should continue to distribute > > darcs under the GPL. (In fact, perhaps you should remove the "any later > > version" clause -- as the Free Software Foundation might someday write a > > new > > version of the GPL which is compatible with the CPL.) Max Battcher <me <at> worldmaker.net> writes: > This sounds really stupid. The FSF has intentionally written the GPL > for copyleft. (Which is why the GPL is often referred to as the > "manifesto that thought it was a license".) They are not in some weird > later version going to remove the copyleft.
Isn't the CPL also a copyleft license? Wouldn't it be possible for the GPLv3 to remain copyleft but also be compatible with the CPL? Aside: Has anyone wondered what would happen if someone (say, MS) gradually infiltrated the FSF and created a permissive GPLv4? The "any later version" clause that some projects use looks a lot like a security hole. :) _______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://www.abridgegame.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
