Compatibility with FPC and avoid the proliferation of licenses... 2 good arguments in favor of GPL v2+ + linking exception. I'll go that way.
Thanks 2014-02-28 13:10 GMT+01:00 Marco van de Voort <mar...@stack.nl>: > In our previous episode, Jonas Maebe said: > > > I would do gplv2+ + linking exception, since that makes it more > > > compatible to > > > FPC, > > > > At least all of our own source code is (L)GPL2+, so it shouldn't cause > > problems. > > Not compatible to our license, but compatible to being included in > collections with uniform license like ours. Nothing legal, just a practical > remark against the proliferation of licenses. > > A proliferation of licenses makes making collections with one such > statement > difficult. And specially if the difference in two such licenses is small, > it is IMHO better conform to something already used. > > > Do we have package that are GPLv2 without the "or later" > > clause? > > Not that I know. > > > > and the risk on Tivoisation is that great in this case. > > > > I guess you mean "not"? In any case, GPLv3 also offers some protection > > against (or rather, offence against) software patents. > > I know that was the intention of GPLv3, but I don't what came of it, and > how > practical (or limiting) it is. > _______________________________________________ > fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org > http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal >
_______________________________________________ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal