From: Daniel Baird Date: 2006-04-07T09:22:49+09:00 Subject: Re: GPL v3 and Ruby License. ------=_Part_11880_31426517.1144369366055 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On 07/04/06, Andrew Johnson wrote: > > > > > Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program > > specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and "any > > later version", you have the option of following the terms and > conditions > > either of that version or of any later version published by the Free > > Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number > of > > this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free > Software > > Foundation. > > In other words, because the current Ruby distribution does not explicitly > restrict itself to a specific version of the GPL, anyone can re-release > or re-distribute current Ruby entirely under any published version of the > GPL, including GPLv3 (when it comes out). > > cheers, > andrew I'm not convinced that's what the licence is saying. If the program licenc= e terms say "GPL2 or later", I think this clause in GPL2 is saying only that you can opt to *comply with* any later version. I don't think it's saying that you can re-release the program code with licence terms of "GPLv3 or later" -- just that for your specific use of the program, you can choose which one you comply with. It's possible I've misinterpreted Andrew's comment. And I'm not a lawyer -= - I still have a beating human heart :) ;Daniel -- Daniel Baird http://danielbaird.com (TiddlyW;nks! :: Whiteboard Koala :: Blog :: Things That Suck) [[My webhost uptime is ~ 92%.. if no answer pls call again later!]] ------=_Part_11880_31426517.1144369366055--