On Thursday 05 July 2007 11.20:15 Martin Voelkle wrote: > On 7/5/07, Cyrille Dunant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > You might want to check on the GNU's project site, then :) > > > > > > I can't find anything on upgrading (or not being able to upgrade) the > > > "or any later version" clause. Do you have any pointers? > > > > Quoth the FSF: > > > > Q: "Why should programs say "Version 2 of the GPL or any later version"?" > > > > A: [...] > > > > Suppose a program says "Version 2 of the GPL or any later version" and a > > new version of the GPL is released. If the new GPL version gives > > additional permission, that permission will be available immediately to > > all the users of the program. But if the new GPL version has a tighter > > requirement [this is the case of v3], it will not restrict use of the > > current version of the program, because it can still be used under GPL > > version 2. When a program says "Version 2 of the GPL or any later > > version", users will always be permitted to use it, and even change it, > > according to the terms of GPL version 2--even after later versions of the > > GPL are available. > > > > If a tighter requirement in a new version of the GPL need not be obeyed > > for existing software, how is it useful? Once GPL version 3 is available, > > the developers of most GPL-covered programs will release subsequent > > versions of their programs specifying "Version 3 of the GPL or any later > > version". Then users will have to follow the tighter requirements in GPL > > version 3, for subsequent versions of the program. > > > > [...] > > It's not clear to me whether these developers must hold the copyright > of the original work in order to license a copy under v3 or later. Of > course it would not change the v2 or later of the original work. > > Brett Smith (from FSF) states it more clearly: > It definitely should be possible, however. There are lots of good > reasons to upgrade to GPLv3, and we'll be happy to do what we can to > help projects that are interested in making the switch. Licenses > aren't designed to be permanent, so it's important to have some kind > of structure to make upgrades easy. The FSF has collected copyright > assignments to do this for GNU programs, and the SFLC has been helping > developers establish other ways to achieve this goal. > http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20070501092619462 > > So you need copyright indeed. > > > Me: > > note that if your future contributions are GPL v3, this does not make all > > the previous contributions v3. They stay v2 > > Sure, but the combined work (i.e. the new version that incorporates > the contribution) is only available as v3. > > > v2 and v3 are incompatible ('tis is what the FSF says, and it is > > reasonable) , and the "or above" which makes them compatible is illegal > > at least in Switzerland, thus, to relicense the code as v3 or above, you > > _need_ the permission of the authors. > > Very interesting. Do you have a public source for the interpretation > of GPL in Switzerland?
It stems from the fact that a contract with hidden terms is invalid, it is not
an interpretation, it is a (good) fact of life.
Do you think a contract signed on paper where you say "I am Cyrille's slave"
is valid ?
--
-- Cyrille Dunant
-- EPFL-IMX-LMC
--
"It took me fifteen years to discover that I had no talent for writing,
but I couldn't give up because by that time I was too famous."
-- Robert Benchly
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ glob2-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/glob2-devel
