From: Bob Gustafson <bobgus@...>
Date: 2006-04-06T04:53:46+09:00
Subject: Re: GPL v3 and Ruby License.

--------------040507080300090205070505
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

I think you agree that the 'v2 or later' is not particularly a good 
thing, although you say 'GPL' without specifying a version.

The problem (as I see it) is that commercial interests can bring to bear 
huge legal (and PR) resources on a legal document that is not crystal 
clear from the outset.

'v2 or later' does not seem to be very crystal clear.

Bob G

Gregory Brown wrote:

>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?
>  
>


--------------040507080300090205070505--