3 ms·
> [...] We had to either go GPL v2+, which assumes the FSF will never go crazy, [...] This is a rather common common misconception. If you use the "Version 2 o
by c0l0 7y ago
> [...] We had to either go GPL v2+, which assumes the FSF will never go crazy, [...]
This is a rather common common misconception. If you use the "Version 2 of the GPL or any later version"-clause in your specific GPL licensing lingo, then any re-distributor may CHOOSE to distribute under GPLv3, or GPLv4 (if it ever exists), or, for that matter, also GPLv2. You're not bound to re-distribute under GPLv${latest} because of that phrase - so it is, in my pov, completely safe to go with the "or later"-clause. (But that also may be because I do trust the FSF to not "go crazy" in the forseeable future :))
- CJefferson 7y agoA future GPL v4 could say "Your code can be converted to the MIT license", or even "your code can be used by company X" in the event of a takeover (which I don't consider an impossible option).
- the_why_of_y 7y ago> "your code can be used by company X" in the event of a takeover The FSF is a tax-exempt 501(c)(3) charity; if it would institute policies to benefit a single for-profit entity, the inevitable IRS audit would be excruciatingly painful and likely result in jail time for directors.