On Thu, 6 Mar 2008 09:38:21 +0100 Miriam Ruiz wrote: > 2008/3/6, Francesco Poli <frx@firenze.linux.it>: > > > In my opinion, the decision boils down to: > > > > o if you want to enhance compatibility *and* you trust the FSF to > > keep the promise that future versions of the GNU GPL will be "similar > > in spirit to the present version"[2][3], then you may choose a "v2 or > > later" approach > > > > o if you want to enhance compatibility *and* you don't mind seeing > > your copyleft more or less weakened (or even completely destroyed) by > > successive versions of the GNU GPL, then you may choose a "v2 or later" > > approach[4] > > > > o if don't mind reducing compatibility *and* you want a strong and > > certain copyleft (while not trusting the FSF to keep the spirit of the > > GNU GPL v2 in successive versions), then you should choose a "v2 only" > > approach > > There's another possibility: dual-licensing your code under the GPLv2 > only and the GPLv3 only. You're right. That would be the following case: o if you want to slightly enhance compatibility with existing licenses *and* you don't mind seeing your copyleft weakened by some clauses of the GNU GPL v3, *but* you don't trust the FSF to publish good future versions (v4, v5, ...) of the GNU GPL, then you may choose a "v2 or v3" approach -- http://frx.netsons.org/progs/scripts/refresh-pubring.html New! Version 0.6 available! What? See for yourself! ..................................................... Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
Attachment:
pgpuH2IKi98W4.pgp
Description: PGP signature