License Framework: Develop Best Practices

Marco Bröder marco.broeder at
Tue Jun 15 20:32:08 UTC 2010

On Tue June 15 2010 04:03:08 Philip M. Gollucci wrote:
> On 06/15/10 00:46, Marco Bröder wrote:
> > I find it especially important to have a expression for 'version X or any
> > later version' (for example 'LGPLv2+'), since the following dummy example
> > is
> > not adequate:
> A very good idea, but not neccessarily the best one.  Future versions of
> licenses are not always backwards compatible?  Its GPLv2 vs GPLv3 one
> such example ?

No. And no.

First, it is not an 'idea' from me, it is actually necessary to distinct 
between 'GPLv2' and 'GPLv2 or any later version', because that is what the 
licenses dictate.

I think, you misunderstood the meaning of the two terms. Backwards 
compatibility does not play any role in it. It is irrelevant.

'GPLv2' is just 'GPLv2'- one single license without any choices. 'GPLv2 or any 
later version' means, the license is 'GPLv2', but the user / developer / 
contributor / whoever may choose -either- this GPL version 2 -or- one of any 
later versions (3 or one of any later versions to come in the future). But it 
is again one single license which applies. It does not mean 'automatically 
choose the most recent / latest version of the GPL' or something like that!

So, there is actually no incompatibility between licenses, because it cannot 
be the case. There is always just one single license which applies, not 
multiple of them.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 801 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
Url :

More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list