On Sat, 5 Jan 2008 15:18:02 -0600 "Jeff Pohlmeyer" yetanothergeek@gmail.com wrote:
On Jan 5, 2008 1:59 PM, John Gabriele jmg3000@gmail.com wrote:
Regarding the "or later" clause, the GPL faq has this to say about it: ... And regarding plug-ins: ...
Thanks for the links - that is some interesting reading, but it seems like the more I read about the GPL, the less I understand it :-)
Now that you mention that, the 2-clause BSD license is a bit easier to understand :)
The "VersionThreeOrLater" link seems to explain why the clause is an advantage to end users, but I fail to see how that provides any protection to developers who might not agree with the terms in a future version of the license.
There is none. This is meant to switch GPL'd software to new versions of the licence automatically, not to protect developers, I think.
The "GPLAndPlugins" link says:
"This means the plug-ins must be released under the GPL or a GPL-compatible free software license, and that the terms of the GPL must be followed when those plug-ins are distributed."
huh????
They can be *released* under any GPL-compatible license, but the GPL must be followed when they are *distributed* ??? What the heck does that mean?
I suppose the sentence should be "the terms of the GPL must be followed when those plug-ins are distributed with the GPL application they are designed to plug into". That way, the plugin can be used "elsewhere" using any licence but is licensed under the GPL whenever distributed with the GPL-distributed application. I also think that those plugins could be dual licensed (GPL + one incompatible license), provided (rather obviously) the "other" license is never used with a GPL main application.
François