gg wrote: > I've always thought the ".. or later" clause in some gpl wording to be a > bit of an odd way to licence something. > > While FSF seems to be doing a solid job until now I always worry about > future GPLs getting knobbbled the way PGP did. > > If GIMP project decides to move to v3 would it be wisest to state > specifically v3 rather than some arbitary unknown "or later"? This seems > an unnecessary risk. > Without the "or later clause" it wouldn't really be a GNU project which isn't much of an alternative. In the worst case, if it turns out the GPLv4 will be a terrible licence someone will just have to fork GIMP when we move to GPLv4+ and maintain a GPLv3 version of GIMP. - Martin _______________________________________________ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
