On Sun, Mar 13, 2005 at 02:09:10PM +0100, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote: > Daniel Carrera <dcarrera@math.umd.edu> writes: > > Given the vast number of Linux contributors, this means that Linux > > won't be able to migrate to the GPLv3 when it comes out, correct? > > That would be the case. Is this a problem? > > Personally, I'd be very sceptical about releasing code under a license > containing a blanket permission to use it under another yet to be > written license. What if I don't at all agree with GPLv3? The theory goes, apparently, that if you don't like the GPLv3 you can simply remove the 'or later' from all copies you distribute, and you're effectively exercising your granted right under "version 2 or, at your option, any later version". I'm a little skeptical about how well this is or isn't going to work. I fear a lot of unpleasant forking action when the GPLv3 comes out, if it contains significant language changes along the lines of the GFDL (which I believe it will, from statements I've read from RMS and Hasn Reiser, amongst others), between people who decide to go "v2 only" and those who like v3 and will go "v2 or later" or even "v3 or later", which will effectively produce licence-incompatible forks. - Matt
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature