On Fri, Jul 13, 2007 at 08:54:17AM -0700, Michael Eager wrote: > Robert Dewar wrote: > >Nicholas Nethercote wrote: > > > >>One way to view it: the license is a feature. Therefore changing the > >>license is changing a feature. Therefore what was going to be 4.2.2 > >>should become 4.3.0. > > > >I certainly agree that the license is a feature, and a pretty > >important one for many users. > > There's a saying "if you call a dog's tail a leg, how many legs > does a dog have. Four. Calling its tail a leg doesn't make it one." > > Version numbers have been based on binary compatibility > and interoperability between versions. > > Saying that license is an interoperability issue doesn't make it one.
GPLv3+ code is however incompatible to GPLv2+ code, so it warrants a major version bump. Ciao, Marcus
