M�ns Rullg�rd wrote: > > Given the vast number of Linux contributors, this means that Linux > > won't be able to migrate to the GPLv3 when it comes out, correct? > > That would be the case. Is this a problem?
For a large colaborative project, possibly. Using only the GPLv2 means you are trapped in that license. Having an "or later" allows some measure of adaptability. Suppose that there is a good reason why the GPLv2 needs to be updated (e.g. to deal with software patents). Then you would like to have the choice of moving to the GPLv3 if you want. > What if I don't at all agree with GPLv3? Well, then it means you gave people more freedoms than you intended. You can still make a GPLv2 fork and make all subsequent releases GPLv2 only. The point is, the "or later" gives you more flexibility and choice. I think it's a prudent precaution. Cheers, -- Daniel Carrera | I don't want it perfect, Join OOoAuthors today! | I want it Tuesday. http://oooauthors.org |
