begin Kenny Tilton quotation: > Anyway, i would find it strange to give the FSF the option effectively > to change the licensing of my stuff at any point in the future by > producing a new version of the GPL.
People specify "or any later version" iff they trust FSF to act to perpetuate (in later versions) the basic intent behind the current version. Let's say there's a radical change in copyright law, or a technological development, that causes the current GPL v. 2 to effectively no longer grant some important rights that it now does. You might then wish to have people be able to accept copies of your work under a newly created GPL v. 3, crafted to restore those grants within the changed circumstances. If your work includes substantial third-party contributions (or is itself a derived work), then that clause might be the only practical way to move forward, in such a hypothetical situation (as the alternative is securing new-licence permission from everyone with a copyright interest). The downside risk is, I suppose, the possibility that FSF might make GPL v. 3 do something radically permissive, e.g., consist of BSD terms. Which doesn't seem too bloody likely. The opposite faux pas, FSF adding new restrictions, is inherently no threat, because any user remains able to accept his copy under v. 2 terms. > I understand the impetus, viz, to have all GPL code consistently > licensed now and in the future,.... That _cannot_ be the case, since the clause creates a situation where some code is available only under some specific GPL version, while others is available under either version n or any version >n, at the recipient's option (absent special permission from the copyright holders to the contrary, in both cases). > ...but the price paid is to give FSF control over the licensing of all > GPLed code.... That can't be the case, either: Recipients have in perpetuity the right to receive the code under the originally specified version. The most FSF might do is grant recipients an option to receive the code alternatively under some different terms. In that case, FSF could do harm to the copyright holders' intent if it made GPL v. n+1 be wildly permissive. Are you worried about that? Then, by all means, don't include the clause. But most of us would consider that improbably in the extreme. > Otherwise, my second problem was with the GNU GPL itself being > copyrighted and not allowing modifications, which I assume means I > cannot use it to make my own license revised as I like. Not without violating FSF's copyright, no. You could independently write a licence in different wording, that expresses the same ideas, without violating FSF's copyright. I'm unclear on the nature of your question: You said you were planning to release some software under the GNU GPL, but wanted our insights into the implications of these two things you've cited. But further on, you come across as just venting displeasure. So, what exactly is your question, if you don't mind? > What exactly does it do for FSF to lock up the GNU GPL that way? My guess is that it gains some standard of identity for its licence. That is, nobody can legally create "Fred's GPL" or "Fred's Free Software Licence Based on the GPL", and have it sitting around. But nothing stops you from creating a GPL-work-alike licence based entirely on your own creative efforts. Go to town on that one, if you like. > Sounds again like control.... The fact that this is little more than polemics isn't a problem, so much as the fact that it's vague. -- This message falsely claims to have been scanned for viruses with F-Secure Anti-Virus for Microsoft Exchange and to have been found clean. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
