On 2013-12-28 19:24:33 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: > Now, the companies in question may legitimately regard a GPLv2+ > upstream as a source business risk, because they have no guarantee > that future versions of the software won't be made available under > GPLv3+ instead of GPLv2+, and if they're relying on being able to > continue tracking upstream, they may well choose to avoid this issue > entirely by adhering to a strict "GPLv2 only" policy. But that > doesn't mean that GPLv2+ imposes any requirements on them *per se* > that GPLv2 does not.
Upstream (more precisely, the copyright holder) may decide to switch directly from "GPLv2 only" to GPLv3 for some future version. So, companies don't necessarily avoid the issue, though there may be less risk. The best way to avoid the issue is to actively contribute to the software and refuse any license change, as long as there is no copyright assignment required by upstream. -- Vincent Lefèvre <vinc...@vinc17.net> - Web: <http://www.vinc17.net/> 100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <http://www.vinc17.net/blog/> Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / AriC project (LIP, ENS-Lyon) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20131229113945.ga17...@xvii.vinc17.org
