Re: is GPL2 or later enough for having a package in ELPA?

[Uwe Brauer]

> Uwe Brauer <oub@mat.ucm.es> writes:

> this was discussed during the drafting of GPLv3 a lot: a later version
> means a license released after GPL 2, but only if it is similar in
> spirit to the license (that’s written in the GPLv2 and GPLv3).

> So no blanket permission. For any future GPL the FSF will have to make
> sure that it’s similar in spirit, to GPL v2 and GPL v3, otherwise using
> old code under these new licenses would risk legal attacks, and then no
> one in their right mind would use those licenses.


> GPLv2+ and GPLv3+ are (upwards) compatible. If you have GPLv3+ files, then
> the project as a whole must be GPLv3+ (or GPLv3, but please don’t leave
> out the "or later", that creates a world of pain if you want to use the
> later version at some point — and if history is a teacher, you will want
> to).

Ok, thanks for clarifying. I usually have the «+» always included.
Just to make sure, to have a LICENSE file in the main directory that
states all files (without specifying them) are under GPL3+ is not
enough.

Ah, and another thing I just found out a few files don't even have a
license included, that is why I thought  a LICENSE could come in handy.

smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature