On Fri, 2010-06-11 at 14:14 +0200, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote: > > Yes for new code, but old code cannot be relicensed easily: > all authors should agree, but GPLv1 is very old, in periods > where contribution did not have an email and "fix" (live-long) > email address was not common. It is: (a) old code (b) not a common license Regardless of whether it may once have been. > BTW unilaterally moving "version 1 and any later versio" to > "version 2 [or 3] and later later" is against the GPL. Nobody is suggesting that code licensed under v1 can be moved to v2 (or later) without the authority of the author(s). > So I think that GPLv1 will remain important for the time being, > and I would include it in common-license. I think the project should actively rate it as 'unimportant', at least partly in order to draw attention to the fact that it is using an obsolete license. If the code is v1-or-later then a trivial fork (by the original developer) is able to relicense it as v2-or-later or v3-or-later. If the original developer is unhappy with doing that, then they do have uncommon licensing desires. Cheers, Andrew. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ andrew (AT) morphoss (DOT) com +64(272)DEBIAN Don't you feel more like you do now than you did when you came in? ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part