Daniel Carrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > 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 :-)
You're probably right, but I still don't like the look of it. >> 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. Take a look out there. Freshmeat.net lists approximately 20000 projects using the GPL. How many of these authors do you think have thoroughly read and understood the GPL? I've seen several cases where the GPL has been chosen for no reason in particular, other than "it's the most popular free software license", or similar. I do not claim to understand it myself either, far from it, which is one reason I do not use it for my own work. > 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. You are seeing it from the licensee's point of view. There, there will indeed be little difference after the introduction of a GPLv3. >From the licensors point of view, it is quite different. Suppose the GPLv3 relaxed the requirements to more resemble the BSD license. This would suddenly allow someone to take your (already released) code, and incorporate it in a proprietary program. Many have chosen the GPL for the precise reason that it disallows this. Consider next a (more likely) stricter GPLv3, with restrictions on use as well as distribution (e.g. running a public server, as has been mentioned (and debated at length)). It may have been the author's intent to allow unrestricted use of his program by anyone, and he may wish that programs based on his give the users the same rights. With this version of the GPLv3, it could also be used against the authors' will. If, one might argue, the author wishes for the terms to remain those of the GPLv2, why does he not remove the "or any later version" option? The answer is simple. Such a license is not compatible with the standard GPL (with the "upgrade" option), since it has "further restrictions", compared to the version allowing a switch to a later version. One common reason to use the GPL in the first place, is precisely to be compatible with other GPL licensed software. Remember that few (none?) copyleft licenses are compatible with the GPL, be it by design or by chance. Placing your code under the GPL, is placing a large faith in the FSF not to change the license terms in a manner you might disagree with, a faith which in many case may be broken, should some of the rumored clauses end up in the final GPLv3 text. -- M�ns Rullg�rd [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
