M�ns Rullg�rd wrote: > > Well, then it means you gave people more freedoms than you > > intended. You can still make a GPLv2 fork and make all subsequent > > releases GPLv2 only. > > Only if all the copyright holders agree. Suppose A has accepted > contributions from B, with the "or later" option, and it turns out > that A does not approve of v3. Now B refuses to drop this, so A is > effectively forced to distribute his code under a license he does not > approve of.
No, if you get code as "GPLv2 or later", you can pick either GPLv2 or pick something later. In your example, A can say "I pick GPLv2" and make a GPLv2 fork. It's like dual licensing. At least, that's what the Debian FAQ says :-) > I'd be very cautious about placing my code at the hands of a third > party in such a manner, and I think it is unfortunate that so many > authors release code under the GPL (with "or later" option), without > properly considering the implications. I guess it comes down to whether those copyright holders trust the FSF to not totally screw it up. I'd think they would have to do something really bad with the GPLv3 for this to be a problem. Consider an extreme case. Suppose GPLv3 is non-free, propietary. That means that your "GPLv2 or later" work is now dual licensed: GPLv2/proprietary But that is still free. It's like MySQL for example (GPL/proprietary). As long as the GPLv2 is an option, the work is free. Or am I just confused? Cheers, -- Daniel Carrera | I don't want it perfect, Join OOoAuthors today! | I want it Tuesday. http://oooauthors.org |
