4 ms·
The author mentioned this exact problem. Quoting: > There was a problem that I noticed right away, though: this text was from the GPL v3, not the GPL v2. In my
by taftster 1y ago
The author mentioned this exact problem. Quoting:
> There was a problem that I noticed right away, though: this text was from the GPL v3, not the GPL v2. In my original request I had never mentioned the GPL version I was asking about.
>The original license notice makes no mention of GPL version either. Should the fact that the license notice contained an address have been enough metadata or a clue, that I was actually requesting the GPL v2 license? Or should I have mentioned that I was seeking the GPLv2 license?
This is seemingly a problem with the GPL text itself, in that it doesn't mention which license version to request when you mail the FSF.
- DSMan195276 1y agoWell to be fair, that's not the full license notice, that's only the last paragraph. There should a couple more above that one and the first paragraph says the version of GPL in use. That said I think the license notice is also just a suggested one, it's not required that you use that _exact_ text.
- hughw 1y agoA Sid Caesar skit showed doughboys celebrating and one shouted "World War 1 is over!"... when they made GPLv2 maybe they didn't anticipate creating future versions (although yeah, if you're already on v2 you should foresee that).
- dredmorbius 1y agoThere is a GPL v.1, and it may have been so numbered at initial publication: <https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-1.0.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-1.0.html>