about licenses

Tito farmatito at tiscali.it
Mon Apr 17 07:29:25 UTC 2006


On Monday 17 April 2006 01:56, Rich Felker wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 17, 2006 at 01:33:30AM +0200, Tito wrote:
> > hi,
> > just one question:
> > we are putting this license boiler plate on bb's file
> > 
> > * Licensed under the GPL v2 or later, see the file LICENSE in this tarball.
> > 
> > but it seems to me that "or later" is nonsense in this case.
> > Wouldn't it be better without it?
> > 
> > * Licensed under the GPL v2, see the file LICENSE in this tarball.
> > 
> > as we are licensing this exactly under GPL v2 and not
> > a later version that as far as i can tell at the moment
> > does not exist (GPL v3 ?!)
> > 
> > Comments?
> 
> Licensing under v2 only is VERY VERY BAD. It means that unless you get
> all authors to agree to change in the future, you will never be able
> to link BB with code that's under GPL v3.
> I'm really sick of ignorant people bashing GPL v3. There is nothing in

I'm not against GPL v3 for the very simple reason that at
the moment it does not officially exist.

> it that harms anyone doing legitimate things with the code. If you

legitimate things and purposes are as always a very personal
representation in space and time.

> don't like it you're free to leave your code under "GPL v2 or later"
> rather than "GPL v3 or later" once GPL v3 is released, but restricting
> to GPL v2 only just hurts the ability of people to use your code for
> legitimate purposes.

Tito
> 
> Rich
> 
> _______________________________________________
> busybox mailing list
> busybox at busybox.net
> http://busybox.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/busybox
> 



More information about the busybox mailing list