Posted by: Crosbie Fitch
on November 05, 2006 08:57 PM
If I wanted to say that, I would have.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)
Obviously no-one can use licenses that do not exist yet, but 'GPLv2 or later' permits GPLv3.
To some extent precluding the use of a successor license may indicate a lack of confidence in the FSF, or it may simply constitute a preference for a definite rather than an open ended license. No big deal.
However, the 'GPLv2 only' is being declared as wholly sufficient for the needs of the Open Source movement.
GPLv3 is motivated by those in pursuit of liberty for the public rather than simply ensuring the visibility of source code in published software.
In addition to copyright, the public's liberty is also liable to constraint by software patents and the DMCA (DRM).
Those favouring freedom will be migrating to the GPLv3. Those happy simply with source code visibility will stick with 'GPLv2 only'.
Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux help
Re:Donate, Disclose, Liberate
Posted by: Crosbie Fitch on November 05, 2006 08:57 PMObviously no-one can use licenses that do not exist yet, but 'GPLv2 or later' permits GPLv3.
To some extent precluding the use of a successor license may indicate a lack of confidence in the FSF, or it may simply constitute a preference for a definite rather than an open ended license. No big deal.
However, the 'GPLv2 only' is being declared as wholly sufficient for the needs of the Open Source movement.
GPLv3 is motivated by those in pursuit of liberty for the public rather than simply ensuring the visibility of source code in published software.
In addition to copyright, the public's liberty is also liable to constraint by software patents and the DMCA (DRM).
Those favouring freedom will be migrating to the GPLv3. Those happy simply with source code visibility will stick with 'GPLv2 only'.
#