Hi (for lack of inspiration as to a more appropriate greeting), I have been trying to decide on a license to use for my personal project. I was considering the MPL until I read about a lot of issues with it on the debian-legal lists.
I have since decided that the GPL is probably the most appropriate license to use (although I am not entirely sure I like the fact it restricts derived code from being distributed only under itself and not other licenses with the same terms; however maybe that is necessary for what it achieves). Anyway, the above points are moot since I've pretty-much decided to use the GPL. However, I've been wondering whether license my project under the GPL v3, or "v2 only", or "v2 or later". I did start reading through debian-legal's messages regarding comments on the GPL v3 but gave up after realising that there was far more information than I wanted and I wasn't very good at filtering out what I did want to know. I did came across this message: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2007/12/msg00114.html (specifically the note on v3). So, I was wondering if it makes the most sense to take a flexible approach and release under "version 2 or later" of the GPL, albeit allowing problems with either version of the license to be exploited, or be less flexible and release under one version (possibly v2). I don't think compatibility with other code's licenses is likely to be a problem either way. Thanks in advance for any advice, Diggory -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
