>
> Is the thinking that this is GPL2-compatible because the license says "GPL2
> or later"?
Torvalds had one of his famous hissy fits over that clause and gave a
well reasoned argument that the clause was not really necessary for a
project to move to gpl3. Whether that view is from him talking t
> We should ask the free software foundation.
Actually, you should ask the FSF to remember that next time they
re-write their license they should remove language instead of adding
it or at least fully define everything leaving nothing vague.
The point should be to make the license attractive to u
On Fri, 07 Jan 2011 at 03:44:18 -0500, Ryan C. Gordon wrote:
> my fast reading says "you can add
> boilerplate of the following types to the license" (disclaimer of
> warranty, etc), and I _think_ Zenimax's additions are allowed under
> this clause.
I believe those clauses in the GPLv3 were intend
I would suggest you re-read the GPL 3, it specifically allows
additional terms to be included.
Actually, yes, you're right...my fast reading says "you can add
boilerplate of the following types to the license" (disclaimer of
warranty, etc), and I _think_ Zenimax's additions are allowed under
