[TylerE]

Because that's not what's used. GPLv2 has an _optional_ update clause that Ribbonsoft/QCad did not elect to use.

This file may be distributed and/or modified under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2 as published by the Free Software Foundation and appearing in the file gpl-2.0.txt included in the packaging of this file.

[muuh-gnu]

> GPLv2 has an _optional_ update clause that Ribbonsoft/QCad did not elect to use.

Actually, the clause is recommended by the FSF. Projects that remove the clause do that fully intentionally.

Considering how long copyright lasts (70 after the death of the author), it is IMHO pretty short sighted to make the licence of a project stuck in time and unable to react to any future legal challenges.

[tzs]

Omitting the "or later" option does NOT make the license of the project stuck in time and unable to react to future legal challenges.

It just means that the owners of the project copyright are the ones who decide how the licensing of the project will change over time. This is not short sighted. It is the best way to ensure that they can keep their code free. If you adopt the "or later" option, you are letting your code be forked under the terms of whatever license the FSF decides to attach the name "GPL" to. The FSF has already shown that they are willing to back away from free software by adopting the non-free AGPL (it does not satisfy freedom 0). Why believe that they won't compromise future versions of regular GPL, too?

By omitting the "or later" option, the project owners can take a look at each future version of GPL, and decide if it is still free and meeting their concerns and requirements, and then update their license if appropriate.

[TylerE]

Not so sure. Given the FSF's patent activism, I would not release software with an upgrade cause in the license, because I don't trust the FSF to not really mug things up with GPLv4, in ways that expose me to liability.

[dragonwriter]

Omitting the "or any later" clause doesn't freeze the project license for ever, it just prevents the terms on which the software is used from being changed out from under copyright owners (including the project owners) arbitrarily at the whim of whoever is currently in charge of the FSF.

The project still has control of the license it offers the project under; of course, if it depends on software from anyone else that is on limited-to-GPLv2 terms (which lots of projects are), it can't change to any other license (whether GPLv3 or non-GPL) without either replacing the outside software or getting the copyright owner to agree to different licensing terms.

The project at issue here appears to use GPLv2-only because they are dependent on other software that is GPLv2-only.

[liljimmytables]

Thanks, I wasn't aware it was an option. My experience is solely from staring at it in sundry repositories.