Diego 'Flameeyes' Petten wrote:
> What I propose is to copy licenses/GPL-2 to license/GPL-2+ and adding the
> following notes at the start of the two files:
>
> GPL-2:
> Note: this license states that the software is licensed under GNU General
> Public License version 2, and you might not be abl
On Wednesday 03 January 2007 22:54, Steve Long wrote:
> Paul de Vrieze wrote:
> > I know that I'm a bit late on this, but to me the "version 2 or later" is
> > a license by itself. Let's call it GPL-RENEW and let the file have
> > contents like:
> > "This package is licensed with the version x or l
Paul de Vrieze wrote:
> I know that I'm a bit late on this, but to me the "version 2 or later" is
> a license by itself. Let's call it GPL-RENEW and let the file have
> contents like:
> "This package is licensed with the version x or later clause for the GPL."
>
> The LICENSE would then be:
> LICE
Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
> Comments, ideas, proposals?
currently we have all those under GPL-2. Now when GPL-3 becomes available
people have the option to use GPL-3. However that will still allow people
to use GPL-2 if their patents, etc need it. SO it is not much difference.
The big diff
