[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Please, no GitHub

From: Luboš Doležel
Subject: Re: Please, no GitHub
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2015 14:31:19 +0100
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.3.0

On 12/12/2015 06:01 AM, Richard Stallman wrote:
>   > They have created a website to suggest licenses for newcomers
>   > (http://choosealicense.com/ <http://choosealicense.com/>) and all
>   > license listed there are free licenses, with GPLv2 and GPLv3
>   > featured at the same time under one of their three major
>   > categories.
> It fails to mention GPL v3-or-later at all.  It tends to leads people
> to use GPLv3-only or GPLv2-only, both of which we deprecate.

"GPLv3 or later" is not a license. GPLv2 is a license, so is GPLv3. They
can hardly promote a license that doesn't even exist yet.

Since choosealicense.com hosts a full copy of GPLv3
(http://choosealicense.com/licenses/gpl-3.0/), there is indeed a section
recommending declaring "either version 3 of the License, or (at your
option) any later version" in the source files.

As a personal opinion, I don't like stating "GPLv3 or later", because it
makes me release source code under a license I never could have read and
agreed to. I am, technically, giving FSF the right to release my source
code under any terms they come up with for the next GPL.

Luboš Doležel

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]