Quoting Micah Cowan ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > As an /author/, I elect GPLv2 (no "or later").
As an author, you have no downside from "or later" if FSF issues a proprietary-leaning GPLv3, because (1) your recipients can always reject it and elect GPLv2, and (2) you would probably follow up latest release n with an n.001 that newly omitted the "or later". I.e., obviously the threat of then forking release n-or-less under FSF's new restrictive terms isn't of concern. What you might theoretically need to fear is FSF's v.3 terms being radically _more_ permissive. Then, suddenly someone can create a non-copyleft fork of n at any time, even as you develop n.001 and after under GPLv2 (as to your portion of the codebase, at least). Most people consider the likelihood of GPLv3 being non-copyleft to be minuscule. > However, there is an interesting situation: when I'm both recipient and > author (as in the case of modifying-and-distributing). Then, you enjoy rights over the codebase without needing to accept the licence on any instance of it in the first place. > Reads a lot into 17 USC 201, Actually, into caselaw. Catherine Olanich Raymond is a copyright attorney. _______________________________________________ vox-tech mailing list vox-tech@lists.lugod.org http://lists.lugod.org/mailman/listinfo/vox-tech