On Sun, 30 Mar 2008 17:20:37 +0300 "Roman Kyrylych" <roman.kyrylych@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 2008/3/30, Paul Mattal <paul@xxxxxxxxxx>: > > What is the right way to list all the various contortions you can now > > have of GPL in the license array? There's: > > > > GPL - any version of GPL > > GPL2 - only version 2 > > GPL2+ - version 2 or later > > GPL3 - version 3 only > > GPL3+ - version 3 or later > > > > These are all substantively different (except the last two.. for now) so > > how do we express these? Should we actually create common licenses GPL2+ > > and GPL3+ which reference the other two, and make GPL reference them > > all? Do we need a GPL1 and GPL1+? > > This issue was discussed in past > (I'm lazy to search for exact thread(s), sorry). > The current scheme is: > GPL - GPLv2 "or, at your opinion, any later version" > GPL2 - GPL2 only (e.g. Linux kernel) > GPL3 - GPL3 "or, at your opinion, any later version" > I don't know of a single project with GPLv1 or GPLv3-only license. > I don't like all these "this version or later" boondongles. Why don't we just keep things KISS and let people explicitly state what licenses are permissable. GPL1, GPL2, GPL3. Put one, or more of those in your licenses array and it's crystal clear what you mean.
