3 ms·
Which other way would you suggest? Also, I was under the impression that very little money and effort was put into attempting to enforce the GPL through lawsui
by justinpombrio 13y ago
Which other way would you suggest?
Also, I was under the impression that very little money and effort was put into attempting to enforce the GPL through lawsuits (and these slides don't seem to suggest otherwise, naming just a few people and suites over the years). Is it more common than I think?
- jes5199 13y agoNo, you're right, I didn't get any actual sense of the scale of the endeavor. Maybe this guy just loves doing it full time. But to answer your question: this whole thing makes me want to reconsider licensing my software as GPL. Just do MIT and not have to think about it.
- gillianseed 13y agoWell you don't 'have to think about it' even if you licence your code as GPL (or any other licence). It's not as if someone forces you to chase after violators.
- jes5199 13y agoI guess you're right. That article a few days ago has me fretting about GPL 2 vs GPL 3 and the incompatibility between them. I mean, I'd like my code to be used in whatever projects need it, and I'd like to be able to accept code back from them. But it seems like it would be really easy to accept code that accidentally constrains you to a particular license.
- belorn 13y agoIf you want compatibility between the two GPL licenses, the easiest way to do so is to license the software under GPLv2 or any later version. Alternatively, one can add an exception for GPLv2 while licensing the code under GPLv3.
- gillianseed 13y agoWell if the main criteria is that want your code to be used in whatever projects need it, then permissive licencing is most likely your best option. If you do want to use GPL then just like belorn said, the 'or later' clause keeps GPL compability against later versions and I believe a majority of GPL projects use that. Linux is of course a notable exception.