Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Front page to wiki now modifiable again

[Adrian Irving-Beer]

On Mon, Mar 22, 2004 at 12:17:11PM -0500, Aaron Bentley wrote:

> If you care about how your work is used, it is far smarter to license
> your work under a real, existing license.

... and ...

On Mon, Mar 22, 2004 at 10:43:43AM -0800, Tom Lord wrote:

> In fact, given the issues being contemplated for v3, it seems to me
> almost certain that v3 will not be v2 compatible.   It will only be
> v2+ compatible.

So basically, v2+ is the flexible way, v2 is the 'guaranteed safe' way,
and they're guaranteed to be incompatible either way?  I can see that.  

Hypothetically, would it be legal (in everyone's IANAL opinion, or IAAL
as the case may be) to say the following:

        This work is currently licensed under GPL v2.  Contributing to
        this work means you release your changes under the GPL v2, and
        additionally allow them to be relicensed under any future
        version of the GPL at the sole discretion of the official
        project maintainers.

... and declare maintainer(s) officially?

Seems to me this would combine the best of both worlds -- careful
'holding pattern' for the current GPL, and a provision to allow upgrades
if the maintainer(s) deem them safe.

(In the case of accidental death, one could presumably pass on
maintainership in their will, or simply declare it 'current GPL or
later'.)

There is of course the question, 'Is it worth it?'  I don't think we'll
get agreement on that, but I'm curious if this sort of approach is
technically possible.

signature.asc
Description: Digital signature