From owner-freebsd-chat Tue May 16 13:56:26 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mail.enteract.com (mail.enteract.com [207.229.143.33]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5CAD337B8E9 for ; Tue, 16 May 2000 13:56:24 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dscheidt@enteract.com) Received: from shell-2.enteract.com (dscheidt@shell-2.enteract.com [207.229.143.41]) by mail.enteract.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id PAA84370; Tue, 16 May 2000 15:54:52 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from dscheidt@enteract.com) Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 15:54:51 -0500 (CDT) From: David Scheidt To: Rahul Siddharthan Cc: David Schwartz , Anatoly Vorobey , chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: RE: Why are people against GNU? WAS Re: 5.0 already? In-Reply-To: <20000517005633.B22400@physics.iisc.ernet.in> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Wed, 17 May 2000, Rahul Siddharthan wrote: > From: Richard Stallman > To: rsidd@physics.iisc.ernet.in > Subject: Re: GPL question > > Is it ok to license one's software under "version 2 of the GPL, and > only that version"? > > It is a bad idea, because when we have GPL version 3 and release other > programs under version 3, your program will be stuck at GPL version 2. > And it will be illegal to copy code between your program and all the > other GPL-covered programs that are released under GPL version 3. > Of course, if you release code under the standard "version n, or any later version", and FSF gets bought out by Microsoft^Wthe forces of evil, and releases version 3 of the license which says "screw you, we get all the rights", you can't do much but whine. If it really ever became an issue, the original author -- or his copyright inheritor -- can re-release under the new license. David To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message