From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1IB6WN-0006Ri-Ea for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 18 Jul 2007 10:12:40 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with SMTP id l6IAAtMg007235; Wed, 18 Jul 2007 10:10:55 GMT Received: from dnsmail4.fleet.navy.mil (pacfa.fleet.navy.mil [205.56.145.34]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id l6IA6LxW002178 for ; Wed, 18 Jul 2007 10:06:22 GMT Received: from VSCAN1 ([157.153.3.104]) by dnsmail4.fleet.navy.mil (8.12.11.SSC-RH.1/8.12.9) with SMTP id l6IA6Ew8027536 for ; Wed, 18 Jul 2007 10:06:20 GMT Received: from cv63ucsex1.cv63.navy.mil ([157.153.3.104]) by VSCAN1 (SMSSMTP 4.1.11.41) with SMTP id M2007071810061328909 for ; Wed, 18 Jul 2007 10:06:17 GMT content-class: urn:content-classes:message Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6603.0 Subject: RE: [gentoo-user] 2 to 3?? Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 20:07:04 +0900 Message-ID: <14178ED3A898524FB036966D696494FB138F21@messenger.cv63.navy.mil> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [gentoo-user] 2 to 3?? Thread-Index: AcfJEw8Yfw/RjikgT1muos4FCLh0iQAAsq/g From: To: X-Archives-Salt: 4c014824-9fbd-43be-bd67-6680bdbf5efd X-Archives-Hash: f8e1eef5d011d4ddcd5376b0942b9446 > -----Original Message----- > From: b.n. [mailto:brullonulla@gmail.com]=20 > Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2007 6:29 PM > To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org > Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] 2 to 3?? >=20 >=20 > Personally I'm quite happy with both GPLv2 and GPLv3.=20 > Frankly, my only=20 > real, serious concern is the fact that the two licences are=20 > incompatible. >=20 > The fact compatibility has not explicitly allowed sounds=20 > plain crazy to=20 > me.=20 > > When I tried asking about how to have some degree of compatibility=20 > between GPLv2 and GPLv3 in code I write, everyone told me=20 > "just license it under GPLv2 or any later version". The problem=20 > is that in this case I have to blindly trust the FSF about anything=20 > that will come out of it.=20 > That honestly is the only real way to make them compatible, to use the "or any later version" clause. Version 3 only allows for very specific modifications to itself. Version 2 was a little more forgiving. Version 3 says "Here is a list of optional clauses." There are other options, but they make it into a new license. -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list