Re: [Savannah-hackers] savannah.gnu.org: submission of Zinac

[Jaime E. Villate]

On Wed, Dec 19, 2001 at 11:24:50PM -0500, Simon Perreault wrote:
> On December 19, 2001 05:00 pm, Jaime E. Villate wrote:
> > the "(at your option)" clause is directed to the user, not to the author.
> 
> Ah, that clarifies everything!
> 
> > back to you. We previously had just "GPL V2" among the choices of license
> > in the project submission form, and we were asked by the FSF to change it
> > to "GPL V2 or later".
> 
> Hum, this show how important the clause seems to be. However, I still feel 
> awkward about all of this. I think I'll wait for the verdict and then decide.

Hi,
I already received an answer from Richard Stallman, but I'm sorry that I got
the reply on Christmas day and then forgot to get back to you.

RMS says that you are not doing anything wrong if you decide to restrict your
license to version 2 only of the GPL, and your software continues to be free
software. However, the FSF doesn't want to accept those licenses in its hosts.
That kind of license would be compatible with GPL v2, but wouldn't be
compatible with the next version. And this is something that the FSF wants to
discourage.

Please keep in mind that if you decide to accept Savannah's policy of "GPL V2
or later", if a version 3 comes out nobody in Savannah would go and update
the license information of your project; it would continue to be "GPL V2 or
later" if you wanted it that way and it would not cause any conflicts for
Savannah. And if a user wants to abide by the rules of V2, because he/she finds
it better than V3, they can choose to do that.

Cheers,
Jaime