Re: GR Proposal 2: Declassification of -private
Eduard Bloch <email@example.com> writes:
> Let's compare that with some license: GPL expects a binary software
> releaser to keep the source available for three years. This is generaly
> accepted as a period which is long enough to make the source not
> interesting for anyone. Should we force that to be changed to 4 weeks
> (rather than 36 months) in GPLv3? This would also apply to the lots of
> software saying "GPL v2 or any later version" in the source because it
> was the default header template.
> Great deal, isn't?
I can't make any sense in this comparison. The fact that some changes
are bad does not mean that all changes are bad.