Thomas Dalton wrote: > 2009/2/7 David Gerard <dger...@gmail.com>: > >> Anyone can take any idiot question to court. That doesn't count as a >> reason to assume that there must therefore be a substantive reason to >> believe that the "or later" language doesn't apply. Nor does being >> unable to prove a negative. >> > > I don't understand what you are trying to say. Some people have > indicated that certain jurisdictions have laws against "or later" > clauses. Experts in the laws of these jurisdictions should be asked to > determine the truth. At the very least, it seems to empirically not be a problem. The GPL has included the "or later" language since it was first published in 1989, and has since gone through two updates (the first in 1991), without, as far as I can find, a single ruling invalidating that language. And GPL-licensed stuff has *much* more extensive worldwide commercial reuse than Wikimedia content does.
-Mark _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
