On 6 January 2014 15:07, David Weinehall <t...@debian.org> wrote: > > On Sat, Jan 04, 2014 at 03:13:01AM +0000, Clint Adams wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 01, 2014 at 10:58:32AM +0100, David Weinehall wrote: > > > That's also why I *don't* use BSD-style licenses for software that > > > I write, but rather GPLv2 or LGPLv2.1. > > > > So if someone takes your LGPLv2.1-only software and adds GPLv2-only > > code to it, do you feel similarly betrayed because you can't take > > that code back? > > Yes; that ruins the whole purpose of choosing of the LGPL -- > not only does the GPL not allow proprietary software to link > against it (which is, for me, the whole point of licensing a library > under the LGPL), but a change from LGPL to GPL is also oneway. > > The only situation I find such a license transformation morally ok is > when taking parts of the code to incorporate in a project (let's say > that a library contains a neat utility function that might be useful in > another project. Linking against a library just for the sake of a > single utility function is pretty over the top, but borrowing that code > (properly credited, of course) feels perfectly fine. >
Well, instead of using "or later" clause, one can dual/tripple/multiple license code under licenses one is ok with. E.g. GPLv2 | GPLv3 and _without and later_ But GPL text does confuse me as a whole, no modifications nor derivate works of the GPL license text are allowed, and the original text has "and later" clause - is licensing without "and later" constitues modification of the GPL license text, which is prohibited and thus all GPL licensed software is, in-fact, with "and later" clause? I guess it's a more of debian-legal@ question rather than debian-devel@. -- Regards, Dimitri. -- 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/canbhlugfjpoabivfds7n1q6gfnxbt_f3stapn6cfppwpbvj...@mail.gmail.com
