Re: External Dependency Proposal: libappindicator

On Fri, 2010-02-19 at 16:34 +0100, Christian Persch wrote:
> Really? The FSF *recommends* that you add the "or later" clause; see
> e.g. [1].
> And if you are concerned about what the later [L]GPL version will say,
> you should at least keep open the possibility to use it, by
> designating
> a trusted proxy to make the licence upgrade decision, like KDE does by
> deferring this to the KDE eV membership in their licensing policy[2].
> You definitly don't need copyright assignment for this. IMHO Gnome
> ought to have a similar policy here. 

I know the FSF recommends this, but seriously.. if you ever get a chance
to ask one of their lawyers personally, like off the record, their
opinion you might get a different response.  I know someone who did. :)

But anyway, I'm don't want to derail this discussion with this.  I just
wanted to point out that LGPL 2.1/3 doesn't strike me as strange, and in
fact that's exactly what I would have chosen if it were up to me for a
personal project of my own.

/ Cody

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]