[lkml]   [2006]   [Sep]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: GPLv3 Position Statement

    On Thu, 28 Sep 2006, Jörn Engel wrote:
    > And this is an area where I slightly disagree with you. While I would
    > hope that you were right, I can easily imagine a judge ruling that "v2
    > or later" in the preamble means that the project just signed a blank
    > license of the FSF's discretion.

    I think a judge could rule on almost anything, almost any way. Some judges
    seem to have less sense than a well-trained rabbit (see the lawsuit about
    "The Wind Done Gone", where at least one judge blocked it.

    Judges are just people, after all.

    So yes, clarifications are good. No question about that. There's a reason
    I added mine. Just to tell everybody else, and to make sure there's as
    little gray area in that place as humanly possible.

    So I'm not saying that "v2 only" language is _bad_. I'm just saying that
    it shouldn't matter. It's technically enough to just say "GPLv2", and you
    don't really have to say anything else.

     \ /
      Last update: 2009-11-18 23:46    [W:0.020 / U:0.356 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site