On Wed, 2007-10-10 at 12:31 +0200, Patrice Dumas wrote: > On Wed, Oct 10, 2007 at 12:20:14PM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > I prefer to rely on existing precedences which had been approved by > > courts, and not a political party's wishful thinking. > > Then you never change licenses? As upstream? Yes, almost never, because this is almost never possible. > Somebody have to take the risk to > release software under the new license in order to have it challenged in > court. It is logical that those who need the new features of the license > (the samba team) takes the risk. The problem is the infectious nature of switching to GPLv3 and the unclarities attached to it. One detail: The "GPLv2 or any later version" clause is inacceptable to several project and probably is incompatible and/or void in some legal systems (In Germany, it is controversial). Did somebody consider something along these lines might be the cause for TrollTech having used GPLv2 only? Ralf -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
