IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New Nothing retroactive about it
Assume GPL V 2.1 game out and it includes this clause. Not any of the other DRM related stuff that seems DOA in GPL V 3, just this new change.

I'd say a large portion of the people who released GPL V2 code would happily relicense to the 2.1. Any of the old code is STILL V2, but any new patches / releases will be 2.1. So the old code will die, while new releases will live.

It is essentially self-forking, but only code owners can use a new license.
New Re: Nothing retroactive about it
so if I'm a free-software developer, I can't choose the license for my work?
Play I Some Music w/ Papa Andy
Saturday 8 PM - 11 PM ET
All Night Rewind 11 PM - 5 PM
Reggae, African and Caribbean Music
[link|http://wxxe.org|Tune In]
New Define your goal and possible usage
New Sure you can. For *your* work, *you* can...
...but for the *FSF's* work, *Novell* doesn't get to choose the license.

That's only fair, isn't it?

   [link|mailto:MyUserId@MyISP.CountryCode|Christian R. Conrad]
(I live in Finland, and my e-mail in-box is at the Saunalahti company.)
Ah, the Germans: Masters of Convoluted Simplification. — [link|http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/?p=1603|Jehovah]
     Change GPL retroactively? - (andread) - (19)
         Nothing retroactive about it - (crazy) - (3)
             Re: Nothing retroactive about it - (andread) - (2)
                 Define your goal and possible usage -NT - (crazy)
                 Sure you can. For *your* work, *you* can... - (CRConrad)
         Nope. - (folkert) - (13)
             Nope to you - (crazy) - (12)
                 I disagree. - (folkert) - (11)
                     Yes and no - (crazy) - (10)
                         You think Linus will accept patches under anything but 2.0? -NT - (CRConrad) - (1)
                             Dunno - (crazy)
                         There is no way that the Linux KERNEL will ever be... - (folkert) - (7)
                             But the issue is not just the kernel - (crazy)
                             Why would anyone fork GCC, etc? Who? - (CRConrad) - (5)
                                 egcs -NT - (altmann) - (4)
                                     That was neither Novell nor Linus rabid 2.0 gang, was it? -NT - (CRConrad) - (3)
                                         Didn't that get un-forked, too? -NT - (pwhysall) - (2)
                                             Yup - but not over license issues - (crazy) - (1)
                                                 Why - is Amazon in the business of *distributing gcc*? - (CRConrad)
         Thanks Gentlemen - (andread)

The natural enemy of the tightrope walker is the common bee.
77 ms