Please please please consider GPL-3+ about os HOT 4 CLOSED

Given how different GPLv3 was from GPLv2, and given that I don't know what the terms of a GPLv4 might be, I'm not sure I'm comfortable with the automatic upgrade. If/when GPLv4 comes out we can evaluate it and see if it makes sense for us.

from os.

The problem with that is that you then require copyright assignment, which means that if patches are written by third-parties who do not give copyright assignment and you choose to later change the license, you can't without getting the permission of people who may not be contactable.

One potentially important factor here is that any code that is written for the Linux kernel would need to be explicitly dual-licensed as the Linux kernel uses GPL-2. Integrating BSD or MIT licensed code is easier as you just maintain dual license for the bits you've integrated.

I honestly believe that the only effective way to use GPL that doesn't shoot you in the foot later is to use "version 2, or at your option any later version".

from os.

@evangreen Declaring something as "GPLv3+" (or formally "version 3, or at your option any later version") means not that it's an automatic upgrade, but that it's actually possible for people to use it under new terms easily.

from os.

Thanks for the feedback. I think for now I'm still going to hold on my position. We can revisit this again as the project matures.

from os.