Hacker News Reader

RMS advises to use "GPLv2 or any later version", which is compatible with GPLv3, instead of "GPLv2 only" license.

One could also suggest that the BFD project adopt "GPLv2 or any later version" (like it had prior to 2008), which is compatible with the GPLv2, instead of the "GPLv3 or any later version" license.

"or any later" is controversial. It essentially puts your project under the agenda of the FSF, which not everyone wants.

Doesn't "GPLv2 or any later version" mean that you can use the software under the terms of GPLv2 or GPLv3 (or some hypothetical GPLv4)?

It can't possibly add any restrictions to the use of your project, because people can always just use it under the terms of GPLv2 if they want.

I guess it could remove restrictions, if the hypothetical GPLv4 was a total 180 and looked more like the MIT or Apache licenses, so I guess if that's a concern then you have a point.

If a new version of the GPL adds restrictions, that still can be undesirable for the writer if the original software.

If a third party forks a GPLv2+ project, adding features that are GPLv3+ licensed, the result is GPLv3+ licensed.

That means those wanting the GPLv2 licensed project won’t be able to use those new features.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com