On Fri, Mar 07, 2008 at 10:40:55PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Mar 2008 09:38:21 +0100 Miriam Ruiz wrote:
> > There's another possibility: dual-licensing your code under the GPLv2
> > only and the GPLv3 only.
>
> You're right. That would be the following case:
>
> o if you want to slightly enhance compatibility with existing
> licenses *and* you don't mind seeing your copyleft weakened by some
> clauses of the GNU GPL v3, *but* you don't trust the FSF to publish
> good future versions (v4, v5, ...) of the GNU GPL, then you may choose
> a "v2 or v3" approach
I would call splitting the corpus of GPL software into incompatible parts
something really bad. What about a somewhat less paranoid option: GPL2+noA
(GPL v2 or any higher, except for licenses from the Affero branch).
You would leave a loophole, but that's FSF not Microsoft...
--
1KB // Microsoft corollary to Hanlon's razor:
// Never attribute to stupidity what can be
// adequately explained by malice.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
