Re: System libraries and the GPLv2
On Thu, 30 Mar 2017, Holger Levsen wrote:
> It's also a major fuckup for some GPLv2-only users (as you just
> described), which as a result made *me* like+trust the FSF and the GPL
> less.
The FSF has always suggested that everyone license their works with the
current revision of the GPL at the time of starting the project, or any
later version, at your option. The only way the FSF could have
accommodated v2 only people was to include an explicit v2 reversion
clause, which makes many of the nice v3 features useless. [Like patents,
warranty disclaimers, non-source conveyance, DMCA bits, etc.]
> (And which then also resulted in me choosing GPLv2-only over GPLv2 or
> GPLv3 more often.)
Why not just license your work GPLv2+, then? You get compatibility with
v3, you can still work with anything which is v2 only, and you have
compatibility with a newer revision of the GPL if one ever happens. Or
at least appoint a proxy who can decide whether later license revisions
meet your standards.
--
Don Armstrong https://www.donarmstrong.com
Do not handicap your children by making their lives easy.
-- Robert Heinlein _Time Enough For Love_ p251
Reply to: