4 ms·
I really do not trust GNU enough to say "or later". There's no reason to think the next GPL's terms will be what I want. Putting "or later" at the end licenses
by xgulfie 7y ago
I really do not trust GNU enough to say "or later". There's no reason to think the next GPL's terms will be what I want.
Putting "or later" at the end licenses your software under unknown terms. It could become CC0.
- ryukafalz 7y agoWell, yeah; it depends on how closely the FSF's goals align with your own. Personally, mine are very close to the FSF's, so I'm comfortable releasing code under GPL v3 or later. Yours may not be. It's worth noting however that it's much easier to go from "v3 or later" to "v3 only" than the other way around.
- OJFord 7y ago> It's worth noting however that it's much easier to go from "v3 or later" to "v3 only" than the other way around. Why so? I always wondered why say 'or later' rather than just adopt v4 (et al.) as dual (...) licences as and when, so I can believe it, I just don't understand it.
- Jedd 7y agoWhich is pretty much the main point of the article.
- ryukafalz 7y agoIf you don't like the new version of the license, you can start releasing your newer code under v3-only. This doesn't stop someone from forking the old version and releasing it under v4, but for the vast majority of projects this isn't an issue; most are small enough that it's uncommon for forks to overtake the original while the latter is still in development.
- ilikehurdles 7y agoHunting down each and every contributor and getting their consent to change licenses or pull their contributions is a lot of effort vs putting “or later” and deciding when later comes whether to shift to the new license.
- smitty1e 7y agoI think RMS's course is steady. How well his ideas will survive him remains to be seen. The more Orwellian Big Tech gets, the happier I am to be an FSF member.