In our previous episode, Jonas Maebe said: > > I would do gplv2+ + linking exception, since that makes it more > > compatible to > > FPC, > > At least all of our own source code is (L)GPL2+, so it shouldn't cause > problems.
Not compatible to our license, but compatible to being included in collections with uniform license like ours. Nothing legal, just a practical remark against the proliferation of licenses. A proliferation of licenses makes making collections with one such statement difficult. And specially if the difference in two such licenses is small, it is IMHO better conform to something already used. > Do we have package that are GPLv2 without the "or later" > clause? Not that I know. > > and the risk on Tivoisation is that great in this case. > > I guess you mean "not"? In any case, GPLv3 also offers some protection > against (or rather, offence against) software patents. I know that was the intention of GPLv3, but I don't what came of it, and how practical (or limiting) it is. _______________________________________________ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
