Hi, On Sun, Oct 08, 2006 at 07:53:34PM -0600, ron minnich wrote: > gpl v2. Let's avoid "or later" until that controversy is resolved.
I don't see a problem with "v2 or later". Everybody who doesn't like to use GPLv3 (when it's released) can just chose to use v2. That's perfectly legal. Ifîwe don't use "v2 or later" for the major parts _now_, but decide (at some point in the future) to convert to "v3 or later" we'll have to go through all of this relicensing stuff again... > All LANL code has that weird bsd-like license text, but note it is really > GPL. So GPL V2. Wait, the actual license is the GPL? It doesn't say so anywhere, so that definately needs to be clarified. As I understood things until now, was that the LANL-text is in itself a license, namely a BSD-ish one. Would LANL agree to relicense their code to GPL, and/or remove the BSD-ish text? It's really confusing... Uwe. -- Uwe Hermann http://www.hermann-uwe.de http://www.it-services-uh.de | http://www.crazy-hacks.org http://www.holsham-traders.de | http://www.unmaintained-free-software.org
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
-- linuxbios mailing list [email protected] http://www.openbios.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxbios
