Re: GPLv2-only considered harmful [was Re: GnuTLS in Debian]
On 6 January 2014 15:07, David Weinehall <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 04, 2014 at 03:13:01AM +0000, Clint Adams wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 01, 2014 at 10:58:32AM +0100, David Weinehall wrote:
> > > That's also why I *don't* use BSD-style licenses for software that
> > > I write, but rather GPLv2 or LGPLv2.1.
> > So if someone takes your LGPLv2.1-only software and adds GPLv2-only
> > code to it, do you feel similarly betrayed because you can't take
> > that code back?
> Yes; that ruins the whole purpose of choosing of the LGPL --
> not only does the GPL not allow proprietary software to link
> against it (which is, for me, the whole point of licensing a library
> under the LGPL), but a change from LGPL to GPL is also oneway.
> The only situation I find such a license transformation morally ok is
> when taking parts of the code to incorporate in a project (let's say
> that a library contains a neat utility function that might be useful in
> another project. Linking against a library just for the sake of a
> single utility function is pretty over the top, but borrowing that code
> (properly credited, of course) feels perfectly fine.
Well, instead of using "or later" clause, one can
dual/tripple/multiple license code under licenses one is ok with.
E.g. GPLv2 | GPLv3 and _without and later_
But GPL text does confuse me as a whole, no modifications nor derivate
works of the GPL license text are allowed, and the original text has
"and later" clause - is licensing without "and later" constitues
modification of the GPL license text, which is prohibited and thus all
GPL licensed software is, in-fact, with "and later" clause?
I guess it's a more of debian-legal@ question rather than debian-devel@.