Re: Updated Licence Draft

On Friday 23 Nov 2007, Cornelius Schumacher wrote:
> On Friday 23 November 2007 01:10:51 Jonathan Riddell wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 23, 2007 at 12:40:41AM +0100, Cornelius Schumacher 
wrote:
> > > Are we sure that we don't need a "(L)GPL v2 or v3" option without
> > > the KDE e.V. approved license choice? I guess there are people
> > > who aren't willing to license their code under a license they
> > > can't know yet.
> >
> > One of the major features of thus update is to make it future proof
> > so we don't end up with the same problems as we currently have
> > again.
>
> Yes, but aren't there a number of contributors who still don't want
> to have the blanket "or later" statement, although they agree to
> license under GPL 3? http://techbase.kde.org/Projects/KDE_Relicensing
> seems to indicate that.

I count 4 so far that don't want any sort of "later than v3" 
permission - either just v2+ or v2/v3/e.v.

There are also several that said v2+ but not v2/v3/e.v.  I'm not sure 
how we reconcile with those who say v2/v3/e.v. but not v2+ if they 
worked on the same file...

Alex



-- 
KDE: http://www.kde.org
Ubuntu/Kubuntu: http://www.ubuntu.org http://www.kubuntu.org

_______________________________________________
Kde-licensing mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-licensing

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQBHRqnJBRauKLutZ9ARAmVDAJ9gguNcUWAJV+iZmO/MUzRn5QMnnQCfeFZW
bJFg9t3J3yFxZo4t4+9LAP8=
=gq+k
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----