[GRASS-dev] r.terraflow license

Glynn Clements glynn at gclements.plus.com
Tue Oct 30 00:39:26 EDT 2007

nicholas.g.lawrence at mainroads.qld.gov.au wrote:

> > > Brad Douglas wrote:
> > > However, we may want to augment the
> > > statement to say "(v2)" instead of, "(>=v2)".  GPLv3 exists and there
> > > has been no consensus on using it (although, the GRASS statement implies
> > > we already do).
> > Glynn Clements
> > If we were to remove the "or any later version" text, we would quickly
> > forfeit the right to subsequently adopt a later version, as any
> > contributions would be assumed to be licensed under "v2 only" terms.
> > If we ever wanted (or needed[1]) to adopt a later version, we would
> > have to obtain explicit consent to do so.
> One option is for authors to donate their code to a foundation (is there
> a GRASS foundation or trust?)

There's OSGeo, but it's rather an unknown quantity at present. Some of
us would rather wait until it has been "tested".

> that has the power to re-release the code
> under an appropriate liscence. This way, if something unfortunate were
> to happen to an author, the foundation would be able to gracefully handle
> software liscencing issues in the future.

Or you can stick with "version 2 or later", which gives the FSF the
power to re-license the code by releasing new versions of the GPL.

If you insist upon a specific version, you're essentially giving the
legal system the power to re-license the code through rulings on the
interpretation and/or validity of specific portions of the GPL.

Glynn Clements <glynn at gclements.plus.com>

More information about the grass-dev mailing list