>>>>> On Mon, 27 Aug 2018, Matija Šuklje wrote: > The GNU family was a special case and it was a very difficult and long > discussion/negotiation about it before the consensus was made. It was > caused by FSF’s very strong stance on this and the trade-off is that FSF > now recommends SPDX as well: > <https://www.fsf.org/blogs/rms/rms-article-for-claritys-sake-please-dont-say-licensed-under-gnu-gpl-2>
I wonder what the goal of that is? If someone says "you can redistribute under GPL version 2" (i.e. if they have removed the "or later" clause from the boilerplate license notice), it is very clear that it is to be distributed under GPL version 2 and no other license (like GPL-1, GPL-3, BSD, CDDL, or any other). So I wonder why RMS's article tries to muddle that up. For example, we have "GNU General Public License v2" in all ebuild headers, and no one has ever challenged that it could mean "v2 or later". As much as I regret that it doesn't say "or later", I think there's absolutely no room for interpretation here. Ulrich
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
