3 ms·

Maybe I do not understand this fully, but this sounds like effectively bypassing the licence to do something which wasn't originally intended, or what the contr

• madsbuch 3y ago
  It seems like GFDL has an optional declaration that is referred to as the "Or later"-clause. Apparently wikipedia opted for that clause allowing automatic migration of licenses for all content to newer versions of the license. In collaboration with the organisation behind GFDL, they used that clause to re-license everything under CC. I think doing something like this is not somethings that should be taken lightly. you are risking the only asset the contract has: trust. On the other hand: It is good to know, as an author, that you should not accept releasing stuff under a license that has an "or later" clause.
  • senko 3y ago
    > It is good to know, as an author, that you should not accept releasing stuff under a license that has an "or later" clause. Definitely: https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/4077/can-the-linux-kernel-be-released-under-gplv3 https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/4077/can-the-...
• yankput 3y ago
  It does put all “or later” clauses licenses at risks, yes If you have “GPLv2 or later”, FSF is then overtaken by Microsoft and makes “GPLv4 is allowing Microsoft to use your code in Windows” then it’s what it is, your code can now be used by Microsoft