For what it's worth, I would prefer, in general, if it were at least GPLv2 or later, but considering that this is just a newsletter and not source code, I don't care that much :)
To be honest, I think this it makes more sense under a Creative Commons license (probably the simple Creative Commons Attribution one).
All the old ones at least should be changed to point to the GPLv2 license however, even if it is GPL2+ rather than GPL2-only.
On 1/15/08, Jeremy Newman jnewman@codeweavers.com wrote:
I'll patch it so it points to the GPL v2 licence, unless someone feels there is a reason it needs to be v3.
Zachary Goldberg wrote:
On Jan 15, 2008 9:58 AM, Ian Macfarlane ian@ianmacfarlane.com wrote:
At the bottom of each WWN issue (for example, the latest http://www.winehq.org/?issue=339) is the text:
"All Kernel Cousin issues and summaries are copyright their original authors, and distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License, version 2.0. "
However, it links to http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.txt which of course is now the GPLv3 license text.
Perhaps the text should change to say version 3 (or perhaps version 2+), or to the old archived GPLv2 license (IMO the former two options are preferable).
for the record: I have no personal preference on the license. Whatever the WineHQ admins decide on the issue is fine with me.