Re: moving to GPLv3 ?
On 08/01/2010 08:52 PM, Takeshi Hamasaki wrote:
> 2010/8/2 Olivier Sessink<olivier@...>:
>> On 08/01/2010 07:09 PM, Takeshi Hamasaki wrote:
>>> It means contributors of old code also must agree the transition.
>> they already did, because the current licence has "GPL 2 or later", so they
>> already agreed that GPL 3, or 4 or 5 is allowed.
> Though I don't see any objection this time sometimes things is not so simple.
> If I write now "GPLv2 and later" it only means GPL 2.x and GPL3 only, because
> I can't decide GPL4 is acceptable or not.
> How can you decide you can agree or not when you don't know next
> version of GPL does not exist in any place of this world?
well, then we should have used "GPL 2", because we used "GPL 2 or later"
at the time when the GPL 3 did not exist yet.
if we did not trust the free software foundation we should not have used
"GPL 2 or later", if you don't trust them we should have used "GPL 2 only".
> It is still possible one of future releases of GPL is not acceptable for me.
> E.g, GPLv3 and GPLv2 is not compatible. That is why Linux kernel developers
> don't transit to GPLv3.
> So I think THIS process (Oliver questioned "Is it OK?") is necessary even
> "GPL 2 or later" is clearly stated.
We should have has this discussion when we chose "GPL 2 or later"