[Dnsmasq-discuss] GPL v3
lars at umich.edu
Tue Sep 11 14:46:29 BST 2007
Simon Kelley wrote:
> 2) Force move to version 3: specify version 3 only.
> 3) Allow version 2 or version 3, at the users choice.
> So the choice comes down to 2 or 3. GPL v3 only or a choice
> of v2 or v3.
> I'm interested in the opinions of the users of dnsmasq,
> represented by the users of this list.
I, too, like the GPL v3, but also don't think it's wise to ever include
an "or later" clause, regardless.
I see licensing as just another tool. In this case the goal of the tool
GPL is to foster collaboration (advancement) and GPLv3 seems better
adapted to the current climate (esp. in the US) than GPLv2. So, I'd say
go with GPLv3 eventually and lean towards 2.
Maybe the transition period as defined by certain development milestones
or a fixed date could allow the choice of GPLv2 or GPLv3.
i.e. once X is fixed/implemented we will move to GPLv3
starting from y1/m1/d1 there is a choice of GPLv2 or GPLv3
after y2/m2/d2 we will begin using GPLv3 only
However, I'm a very new user of dnsmasq.
A drawback with the GPLv3 is that it is not as easily grasped as the
GPLv2. But even so, sw patents are one of the most severe threats to
both basic business operations and even development. GPLv3 might help
keep sw patents out of Europe, allowing for an eventual salvage of the
More information about the Dnsmasq-discuss