GPL - a invalid license choice?

[Bas Wijnen]

On Sun, Aug 19, 2007 at 03:12:33AM +0200, Miriam Ruiz wrote:
> > The link refers to GPL version 2 which makes sense for me. But not to
> > specify the version seems just wrong.
> 
> You're right, it might be better to specify the version.

Better indeed, but not required.  From the GPL (version 2):

	Each version is given a distinguishing version number.  If the
	Program specifies a version number of this License which applies
	to it and "any later version", you have the option of following
	the terms and conditions either of that version or of any later
	version published by the Free Software Foundation.  If the
	Program does not specify a version number of this License, you
	may choose any version ever published by the Free Software
	Foundation.

Which means you are free to choose to accept only version 2 and later,
and distribute it as such.  When doing that, you should of course change
the headers to reflect this choice.

Thanks,
Bas Wijnen

-- 
I encourage people to send encrypted e-mail (see http://www.gnupg.org).
If you have problems reading my e-mail, use a better reader.
Please send the central message of e-mails as plain text
   in the message body, not as HTML and definitely not as MS Word.
Please do not use the MS Word format for attachments either.
For more information, see http://pcbcn10.phys.rug.nl/e-mail.html
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-games-devel/attachments/20070819/7a464e40/attachment.pgp