2009/2/9 Delirium <delir...@hackish.org>: > 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.
Have any of the updates been as drastic as the latest? Was there anything in the previous updates that anyone would be likely to object to? _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
