Quoting Brian T. Sniffen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > I don't think that's quite true: if the GPLv3 were to say, for > example, that anyone using the code for an Application Service > Provider would have to distribute code to all customers or > users... that's not useful to me. I would not be able to usefully > implement the benefits of others' code. Thus, the copyleft would fail > there too: somebody effectively would have written something > proprietary out of my code.
I think you're completely missing my point: That would be an example of a _more_ restrictive licence, which any recipient could (and would) avoid by electing to receive the code under GPLv2, instead. The main developers could then, for the next version, either change the terms to pure GPLv2 or (if all who own the rights agree) to some other suitable successor to GPLv2. Thus, such a hypothetical instance of the FSF going haywire would (again) do the coders' interests no harm. Which was my point. -- Cheers, "I don't like country music, but I don't mean to denigrate Rick Moen those who do. And, for the people who like country music, [EMAIL PROTECTED] denigrate means 'put down'." -- Bob Newhart
