every other major copyleft *forces* you to allow later license versions [LWN.net]

every other major copyleft forces you to allow later license versions

Posted Oct 4, 2006 11:22 UTC (Wed) by viro (subscriber, #7872)
In reply to: every other major copyleft *forces* you to allow later license versions by himi
Parent article: Busy busy busybox

Read GPL. "you have the option of following the terms and conditions
either of that version or of any later version published by the Free
Software Foundation". In other words, to distribute a work under
"v2 or later" it is enough to comply with GPLv2 alone. So if
recepients demand something you would have to provide under v3
but not under v2 and you refuse, there's nothing they can legally
do. Please, read section 9 and understand it. BTW, ask stevenj
to explain it - perhaps he'll do that better. He does understand
what it means, judging by his postings in this thread.

The rest of your points is based on that misunderstanding of how
"v2 or later" works, AFAICS...

(Log in to post comments)

every other major copyleft *forces* you to allow later license versions

Posted Oct 5, 2006 4:01 UTC (Thu) by himi (guest, #340) [Link]

Okay, I see the line of reasoning there, and if it's legally valid (which I'd like to hear from a lawyer) then it's a rather ridiculous loophole in the license which could probably only be fixed with a /forced/ upgrade clause.

However, it doesn't affect any of my other arguments - the /recipient/ of the code is still receiving it under the "any later version" language in clause 9, and hence /they/ can choose to act under either v2 or v3; they also /must/ pass the same rights along to any future recipients of the code. So, without actual relicensing happening v2-only or v3-only forks aren't possible except as I outlined - when /new code/ is written under either license exclusively. And that's within the rights of the authors, both legally /and/ morally, isn't it?

himi