From: Gregory Brown <gregory.t.brown@...>
Date: 2006-04-06T02:09:36+09:00
Subject: Re: GPL v3 and Ruby License.

On 4/5/06, Bob Gustafson <bobgus@rcn.com> wrote:
> Relative to the v2 vs v3 discussion, you might have a look at the latest
> Linux Journal (May 2006). On page 48, Doc Searls extracts (with
> commentary) portions of the Linux-Kernel Mailing List between January
> 25, 2006 and February 2, 2006 where Linus Torvalds weighs in against his
> use of anything other than v2 for the Linux kernel.

yes, this was discussed at the FSF meeting.

> I guess it depends on what you want to allow to happen in the future.
> Having a 'v2 or later' clause in a contract does seem to open the barn
> door to lots of possibilities.

Though I seem to be well known for being the one guy who supports the
GPL on this list, I'm also just asking pretty much exactly that.

Do we spend the time now removing any 'v2 or laters' anywhere they are
found?  Or do we just expect that v3 will be used in the future?  Or
do we avoid the GPL entirely, as others have suggested?