On Fri, 26 Sep 2008, Ben Finney wrote: > Matthijs Kooijman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Re-license the entire work under the GPLv2, and clarify your grant > of license to use the simple definition of terms from the GPLv3. > This would have a license grant something like: > > This work is free software: you may … under the terms of the GNU > General Public License, as published by the Free Software > Foundation; either version 2 of that license or, at your option, > any later version. > > For the purpose of this grant of license under the GNU General > Public License, the “source code” for a work means the preferred > form of the work for making modifications to it; the “object code” > means any non-source form of a work.
This is a bad idea. If GPLv2 does not actually mean this, you are adding an additional restriction. If it does, you're just wasting time. Neither option is terribly useful. If you think this is a real problem, your only real option is to use GPLv3. I personally think it isn't, but that's my own opinion, not advice to you. [I'd be really surprised if anyone would ever bother to exploit this loophole in the case of graphics. I'd expect someone who could actually litigate it would almost certainly buckle under community pressure, and people who don't have the money to would likely settle for releasing the source.] Don Armstrong -- N: Why should I believe that?" B: Because it's a fact." N: Fact?" B: F, A, C, T... fact" N: So you're saying that I should believe it because it's true. That's your argument? B: It IS true. -- "Ploy" http://www.mediacampaign.org/multimedia/Ploy.MPG http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
