2009/2/7 Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com>om>:
2009/2/7 David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com>om>:
> There is no legal question over the very
relicensing itself. You
> trying to spread FUD here doesn't count.
There's no question in the US. I'm not
convinced by "We believe that
licensing updates that do not fundamentally alter the spirit of the
license and that are permitted through the license itself are legally
valid in all jurisdictions." (the FAQ) I don't hold much stock by
"belief", I'd rather here from somebody that actually knows about each
jurisdiction (at least, the ones where we have a major presence, every
single one would be impractical).
Anyone can take any idiot question to court. That doesn't count as a
reason to assume that there must therefore be a substantive reason to
believe that the "or later" language doesn't apply. Nor does being
unable to prove a negative.
- d.