Should we drop the "or later" after GPLv2?

Roberto A. Foglietta roberto.foglietta at gmail.com
Thu Aug 24 09:42:06 UTC 2006


2006/8/24, Glenn L McGrath <bug1 at ihug.co.nz>:
> On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 17:27:23 -0400
> Rob Landley <rob at landley.net> wrote:
>
> > On Saturday 19 August 2006 9:10 am, Glenn L McGrath wrote:
>
> > > Even if the GPLv3 turned out to be everything Linus ever wanted the
> > > Linux kernel could never move to it because its practically
> > > impossible to get everyone who has contributed to it to agree to
> > > anything.
> > >
> > > If we remove the (or later) clause like Linux did, then it has
> > > similar implications for us in the future.
> >
> > Do you think the Linux kernel is going to become obsolete in the next
> > 10 years?  Do you think the license on the Linux kernel is going to
> > become obsolete?  Do you think having the same license as the Linux
> > kernel is going to be a bad thing?
>
> All im saying that a future licence may be better than the current one,
> and for practical reasons linux (kernel) is locked out of using that
> future license.
>
> Its not just about GPLv3 either, in theory there may be legal reasons
> why a GPLv4 is desired.
>
>

 Sincerly I met RMS some years ago and I have to say that future of
GPL will not be as much bright as in the past was. Expect GPL v4 never
will be wrote or it will be a last volunteers document like: "I am RMS
the person who changed the world and invented the freedom, remember
me". RMS *was* great, GPL v2 still be great. Past was the time of
great men/women, present belong to us, future to our children.
Everything IMHO.

 Cheers,
-- 
/roberto



More information about the busybox mailing list