In message <3ccb7043-cf70-480b-84d1-27332fda9...@math.su.se>, Hans Aberg
<hab...@math.su.se> writes
I don't see much point in continuing this discussion further because I
don't think you understand what the real problems (or solutions)
are, or
what the requirements of the GPL (in any version) are.
The point is that if you want to be up-to-date with latest GPL in both
new restrictions and permissions, the only way to do it is to refer to
the latest version when the source is published.
"Or later" will admit later restrictions, "or latest" will impose them
quietly on old sources.
BINGO!
And this is EXACTLY the problem with your suggestion. You are
RETROACTIVELY CHANGING THE LICENCE!
As has been pointed out elsewhere, this will have the effect of making
what was legal, illegal. What happens if v4 comes out and Joe Bloggs
never hears about it? He was happily distributing under v3 perfectly
legally, now he's happily distributing under v3 ILLEGALLY.
I'm not a lawyer, but if I came across "v2 or latest" wording, my advice
would be to treat it as "v2 only" because to do anything else IS TOO
DANGEROUS. So your wording is self-defeating because no sane distributor
would dare take advantage of the "or latest" clause.
Cheers,
Wol
--
Anthony W. Youngman - anth...@thewolery.demon.co.uk
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
