[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: GPL v2/v3 ?



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: pgp3cNd16Lzda.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: