Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Thu, 28 Sep 2006 16:59:38 +0200 | | From | DervishD <> | | Subject | Re: GPLv3 Position Statement |
| |
Hi Jörn :)
* Jörn Engel <joern@wohnheim.fh-wedel.de> dixit: > On Thu, 28 September 2006 16:19:32 +0200, DervishD wrote: > > Probably the renaming is just common sense and will avoid ALL > > problems. People like me are concerned only because all GPLv2 that > > doesn't state otherwise will be released automagically under GPLv3 as > > soon as the latest draft is made the official version. Otherwise, I > > wouldn't give a hump about any new license until I have the time to > > read it and see if I like it. > > In my very uninformed opinion, your problem is a very minor one. > Your "v2 or later" code won't get the license v2 removed, it will > become dual "v2 or v3" licensed. And assuming that v3 only adds > restrictions and doesn't allow the licensee any additional rights, > you, as the author, shouldn't have to worry much.
Really my problem is that I still don't fully understand neither the new license nor the possible effects, so just in case I want to decide if I want my code dual licensed or not. It's not a big worry, I know, but I prefer things that way.
> The problem arises later. As with BSD/GPL dual licensed code, > where anyone can take the code and relicense it as either BSD or > GPL, "v2 or v3" code can get relicensed as v3 only. At this point, > nothing is lost, as the identical "v2 or v3" code still exists. > But with further development on the "v3 only" branch, you have a > fork. And one that doesn't just require technical means to get > merged back, but has legal restrictions.
See? I didn't have seen things from this point of view, and that's the kind of problems I want to be aware of before allowing my code to be dual licensed.
> And here the kernel wording with "v2 only" in the kernel is > interesting. It turns a one-way compatibility into no > compatibility at all. So the evolutionary advantage is lost, as it > only exists through the "v2 or later" term.
Well, in my code that's exactly what I want regarding licenses. Probably GPLv3 is better (I don't know yet) and probably GPLv4 will be the best license out there, but I prefer to be precise about what license do I use.
Thanks for your explanations :)
Raúl Núñez de Arenas Coronado
-- Linux Registered User 88736 | http://www.dervishd.net It's my PC and I'll cry if I want to... RAmen! - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |