| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
No GPLv2-only projects on SavannahNo GPLv2-only projects on SavannahPosted Mar 24, 2006 9:40 UTC (Fri) by Arker (guest, #14205)In reply to: No GPLv2-only projects on Savannah by vondo Parent article: No GPLv2-only projects on Savannah
I can certainly understand where you're coming from, but it honestly seems to me more trouble that way than the other.
If you want to go to GPL v3 later, you need permission from every contributor. Maybe for your project, that isn't tough, but for some it's impossible, and the longer your project runs, the more difficult it gets.
On the other hand, if you use the 'or later' clause, and decide that you don't really like v3 when it comes out, you can move to v2 only license unilaterally. No fuss, no muss. If anyone else wants to, they can fork and continue their own version under v3 too, of course, but would that even really bother you? And even if it would, you have to weigh that against the pain later if you take the first route, and the likelihood of the FSF ever doing anything really evil with the licensing.
(Log in to post comments)
No GPLv2-only projects on Savannah Posted Mar 23, 2007 15:44 UTC (Fri) by vonbrand (subscriber, #4458) [Link] On the other hand, if you use the 'or later' clause, and decide that you don't really like v3 when it comes out, you can move to v2 only license unilaterally. Wrong. That is a change in licensing terms, and must be agreed by everybody involved. Just like the other way around.
No GPLv2-only projects on Savannah Posted Mar 24, 2007 19:28 UTC (Sat) by liljencrantz (subscriber, #28458) [Link] No. You are completely within your right to fork a FSF project such as glibc or emacs under GPLv2 only. Bruce Perens tried to make the same claim you did when Busybox moved to GPLv2 only, but he was shot down. Busybox is a pure GPLv2 project today.
|
|
||||||||||||