Re: Copyright/licensing action plan + a sample [PATCH]

[Anthony W. Youngman]

In message 
<address@hidden>, Han-Wen 
Nienhuys <address@hidden> writes
> On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 8:29 PM, Anthony W. Youngman
> <address@hidden> wrote:
> > > So your idea is basically postponing the problem to a time, where we might
> > > not
> > > be able to solve it properly any more?
> > Nope. My idea is basically saying "let's face reality. Some people will
> > never agree to "or later" so let's have a contingency in place". Seeing as
> > that seems to include certain MAJOR contributors like Han-Wen, then having
> > that contingency seems to be a very good idea.
>
> Please don't speak for me.  I am not opposed to GPL v3, but I don't
> want to be involved in any of the legal (or
> laymen-people-interpreting-law) and bikeshedding discussions that this
> 'upgrade' has to involve.  Ie. please reach consensus without me.
Apologies if I was out of turn. From what Jan said, I got the impression 
you were very much against the "or later" clause, and that's all I've 
ever attributed to you.

If you're not opposed to v3, would you mind sending Joseph (and the 
list) an email relicensing your code "v2 or v3"? That way we've moved on 
a bit. If you've changed your mind about "or later" and you could 
relicence "v2+" that would be great from Joseph's point of view.

Whether the aim is to go v2+ or v3, I hope you agree that, at least, v3 
COMPATIBILITY is important, and that you'll help us get there.

Then you can leave it to the armchair lawyers :-)

Sorry if I'm ruffling feathers, but I'm trying to focus on what is 
achievable, even if I'm pouring cold water on some peoples' aspirations 
- I got involved in this thread because I'm interested in legal matters 
(I track Groklaw, debian.legal ... you see what I mean ...)

Cheers,
Wol
--
Anthony W. Youngman - address@hidden