On 10/23/08, DJ Delorie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The "or later" clause allows a recipient to ACT under the terms of a > newer license to a Work covered by an older license. It does NOT > allow the recipient to CHANGE the license itself. Further recipients > of that Work apply the terms of the original license.
I'm confused. Doesn't `to act under the terms of GPLv3' imply `give all recipients a copy of this (GPLv3) License along with the Program'? Let A be the original authors set, who released the product in question under the terms of the GPLv(X)+. then B (possibly intersecting with A) distributes it under the GPLv(X+1)+ to C. now C is bound by terms of the GPLv(X+1)+ while this C don't get the same product from anybody (it can be A or even B) under the terms of the original license. C also may check the sources and if every file contains GPLv(X)+ note (however, in some projects there are source files that have no such notes at all), I think C may figure out that he or she or they are permitted to follow the original license. Since the product is the same and it is available from two sources (A and B), the question `what license is it under' perhaps has no plain answer. Then, after some time A becomes unavailable and B is in fact the only distributor; this should mean that the product is only distributed under the terms of the next license. I see, anybody who was authorised by A may become another GPLv(X)+ distributor, but if B doesn't merely redistribute, but maintain and further develop the product (naturally releasing the changes under the GPLv(X+1)+), so (as A's gone) there may be reasons why the original GPLv(X)+-ed product from is not so interesting. Do I understand you correctly? please tell me where I am wrong. _______________________________________________ geda-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-dev
