| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Better the FSF than the rest of the industryBetter the FSF than the rest of the industryPosted Mar 23, 2006 3:03 UTC (Thu) by Max.Hyre (subscriber, #1054)In reply to: No GPLv2-only projects on Savannah by DrHook Parent article: No GPLv2-only projects on Savannah
It's kinda like saying "Here's my code, you may use it under these conditions or any other conditions that the FSF make up as they go!"Well, actually, that's exactly what I'm saying. I believe the FSF will work to keep my code Free in the way I intend. The likelihood of the FSF betraying that trust is roughly that of the Reverend Mr. Falwell opening an abortion clinic.
(Log in to post comments)
Better the FSF than the rest of the industry Posted Mar 23, 2006 9:54 UTC (Thu) by gouyou (subscriber, #30290) [Link] Well, actually, that's exactly what I'm saying. I believe the FSF will work to keep my code Free in the way I intend. The likelihood of the FSF betraying that trust is roughly that of the Reverend Mr. Falwell opening an abortion clinic. Fine for believers, but if you think that the ASP loophole is a feature and not a bug, then you have a problem. It may happen that your interpretation of freedom will derive from the FSF interpretation of freedom in the future. (Might not be that much a problem as your code is still available under the GPL v2, but later mixing with GPL v3 contribution could land you in legal trouble.)
Better the FSF than the rest of the industry Posted Mar 23, 2006 9:59 UTC (Thu) by job (subscriber, #670) [Link] That's why you say "OR later versions". The end user gets to choose whether he wants to use your code under whatever GPL version he prefers.
Of course, after the FSF has blessed GPLv3 they will want people to change that line to "v3 or later versions" but if you don't like how v3 turned out you can just abstain that change.
Better the FSF than the rest of the industry Posted Mar 23, 2006 12:41 UTC (Thu) by Wol (guest, #4433) [Link] Actually, the FSF is legally obliged to keep your code free...
Well, that might not QUITE be true, but the comment about "or any other conditions that the FSF make up as they go!" is completely off the wall - may I refer you to the GPL v2 for confirmation?
If you read the GPL, you will notice that it says - AS PART OF THE GPL ITSELF - that any revisions will comply with spirit of the current version. So if I release my code under "GPL v2 or later", and then the FSF releases (in twenty years time?) GPL v5 that does *not* comply with the spirit of free software, then I can simply say (with reason) why I consider that v5 is not a true successor to v2. At this point, I now stand a very good chance of going to law and having v5 struck down as a valid licence for my work. Just because it's called the GPL, doesn't mean it's a valid successor. It's got to comply with the explicit promise in v2 for that to be true.
Cheers,
Better the FSF than the rest of the industry Posted Mar 23, 2006 23:19 UTC (Thu) by sepreece (subscriber, #19270) [Link] Umm, the GPL i a license that an author might choose to use to control distribution of her code. While the FSF controlled the writing of that license, I don't think there's any legal sense in which the "similar in spirit" clause actually constrains the FSF or future versions of the GPL. Nor is there any way an author can "retract" the "or later version" language once the code has been distributed under that license - anybody receiving a version under a license containing the "or any later version" language is free to choose any such version, whether it's in the same spirit or not. IANAL, but I'm pretty sure that once you've set the license terms, you're stuck with them (though you could, of course, use different license language for a later version - as the author, you can specify the terms you like each time you distribute the code.
|
|
||||||||||||