I haven't replied in detail to Batist yet because I am still digesting the hash that Babelfish makes out of his Dutch article. And I don't entirely agree that the GPL is horribly drafted, by comparison with the kind of dog's breakfast that is the typical license contract. In the past, I have tried to draft something with similar legal meaning myself, and on review I did a really lousy job.
I have used the GPL, and will probably use it again (emphatically without the "upgrade option") the next time it comes up, as the default license under which I provide source code for software I write primarily for a client's internal use, insofar as "work made for hire" provisions do not apply. As such, I have gone out on quite a limb in this discussion, possibly giving a future legal opponent grounds for estopping me from making certain arguments in a courtroom. So be it. On 5/9/05, Humberto Massa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [snip] > Batist, I think you are mistaken about the meaning of the "any later > version" copyright license... the terms are precisely '' This program is > free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms > of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software > Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any > later version. '' and they mean that said program is dually-triply-etc > licensed under the GPLv2 or v3 or v4 or any other upcoming FSF-GPL, at > the licensee's discretion. I used to think it extroardinarily unlikely that this formula, with regard to as-yet-unwritten offers of contract, would have legal force in any jurisdiction. The prevalence of similar terms in shrink-wrap software licenses nowadays -- which I abhor, and blame directly on RMS, Eben Moglen, and the FSF -- has eroded that confidence to some degree. If it were ever to come up in a court case in which I personally was involved, I envision disputing its validity to the last breath. (I reserve the right to do otherwise, of course.) > I am a defender of the GPLv2. I am not a defender of the GPLv3 because I > don't know its terms yet... :-) I don't know why would anyone license > their work under yet-undisclosed terms, but... I too am a defender of the GPLv2 under an interpretation which I believe to be correct under the law in the jurisdiction in which I reside. As to gambling on future license texts: I find it uncomfortable enough to live in a society in which disputes on all scales are frequently settled by reference to a corpus of law of which no human being can possibly retain more than a small fraction in his or her brain, and which is perpetually being evolved and ramified by legislatures, courts, and unspoken consensus. The existence of persons who would knowingly further complicate their lives by handing over additional liberties to a person who publishes opinions such as http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/enforcing-gpl.html appalls me but has ceased to amaze me. Cheers, - Michael