On Tue, Jul 24, 2007 at 09:53:54PM +0200, Mark de Wever wrote: > On Tue, Jul 24, 2007 at 02:46:48PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Yes, upon consideration, until the 'GPL3 controversy' came along, I > > (and I think most other developers) would have always said that it is > > under 'GPL 2 or later'. > > > > We probably naven't been clear enough about this, and mostly just said > > it is "under the GPL". I think the "default" when one says this is for > > it to be the current version of the GPL or later. > > > > As such I feel that Wesnoth is licensed under 'GPL 2 or later', and > > that we should change things to reflect this. > > (I read this mail after my reply to ott's mail.) > If the orginal intent was to license 'GPL 2 or any later version' then > I think the headers should be updated accoringly, but I want to wait a > little while before doing that since it might be that some developers > were under the impression that they contributed to 'GPL 2 only' project. > I want to have the headers updated before the next release, due in about > 3 weeks according to the release schedule.
I heard no further reactions and have updated the headers. Also the files without a copyright statement got one. Regards, Mark de Wever aka Mordante/SkeletonCrew _______________________________________________ Wesnoth-dev mailing list Wesnoth-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/wesnoth-dev
