FSF is creating a problem that never existed! [LWN.net]

FSF is creating a problem that never existed!

Posted Oct 24, 2006 22:34 UTC (Tue) by landley (guest, #6789)
In reply to: FSF is creating a problem that never existed! by jzbiciak
Parent article: Busy busy busybox

> Firstly, keep in mind that the "or any later" language has always been
> optional.

Actually, you have to go out of your way to opt out. The last sentence
of section 9:

> If the Program does not specify a version number of this License, you
> may choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation.

So if you just said "This is GPL" when GPLv2 was the law of the land, the
FSF gets to arbitrarily relicense it because you didn't go out of your
way to say they couldn't.

(Log in to post comments)

FSF is creating a problem that never existed!

Posted Oct 24, 2006 22:51 UTC (Tue) by jzbiciak (✭ supporter ✭, #5246) [Link]

I don't think that's going any further out of your way than saying "this is GPL." If you're sloppy when you pick your license, it's clear you don't really care what the license is. The real debate should center around people who thoughtfully chose "GPL v2 or later" who are now re-evaluating that choice. And, I argue, there's not a real problem there, since you can fork and move on.

I still don't see the issue with the "or later" language. If someone writes a GPL v3-only patch to a GPL v2-or-later program, the patched program is GPL v3-only. The unpatched program still exists, though. So, if someone else didn't like GPL v3, they could continue developing the GPL v2-or-later program, perhaps making the result GPL v2 only if they so desire.