| |||||||||||||
FSFE wants to better protect free software licenses from bankruptcyFSFE wants to better protect free software licenses from bankruptcyPosted Jul 30, 2012 16:28 UTC (Mon) by butlerm (subscriber, #13312)In reply to: FSFE wants to better protect free software licenses from bankruptcy by Cyberax Parent article: FSFE wants to better protect free software licenses from bankruptcy
The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new versions of the GNU General Public License from time to time. Such new versions will be similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in detail to address new problems or concerns. If the FSF is liquidated, it will legally cease to exist, and no one will have the legal authority to make a new version of the GPL to which the "any later version" clause applies. If, on the other hand, the FSF itself tried to do something similarly questionable, it would no doubt be a violation of the implied promise made by the "new versions will be similar in spirit to the present version" clause.
(Log in to post comments)
FSFE wants to better protect free software licenses from bankruptcy Posted Jul 30, 2012 16:37 UTC (Mon) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]
> it would no doubt be a violation of the implied promise made by the "new versions will be similar in spirit to the present version" clause.
The problem is who gets to decide.
As far as many people are concerned, GPLv3 isn't in the same spirit as GPLv2
FSFE wants to better protect free software licenses from bankruptcy Posted Jul 30, 2012 16:58 UTC (Mon) by Richard_J_Neill (subscriber, #23093) [Link]
> As far as many people are concerned, GPLv3 isn't in the same spirit
> as GPLv2
In many cases, that perception is based on a misunderstanding. GPLv3 fixes some "bugs" in GPL2, notably regarding DRM (Stallman was farsighted, but he didn't see that coming when GPL2 was written).
The most popular misunderstanding of GPL3 (even made by Linus) was that you'd *always* have to give up your encryption keys if you published GPL3 software. Actually, all it does is plug the "Tivo" loophole by saying "if you use GPL software, but try to enforce that your hardware only runs a specific signed binary, that's considered cheating, and you must publish the keys required by the hardware".
If you look at the "four freedoms" as the guiding principles, I think GPL3 is definitely in the same spirit as GPL2.
FSFE wants to better protect free software licenses from bankruptcy Posted Jul 30, 2012 19:33 UTC (Mon) by butlerm (subscriber, #13312) [Link]
> The problem is who gets to decide.
If you don't trust the FSF, and aren't willing to let your code be used in projects that use other FSF licenses, don't use the "any later version" clause. If you require copyright assignment, or are the only copyright holder, or require contributors to license contributions under a license that allows the project to relicense, you can wait and see what the new versions are like.
FSFE wants to better protect free software licenses from bankruptcy Posted Jul 30, 2012 20:57 UTC (Mon) by mjw (subscriber, #16740) [Link]
In GPL version 3, for free software projects that want to allow users to be able to upgrade to later versions of the GPL, there is a new option which provides an alternative to just specifying "or any later version" in clause 14:
If the Program specifies that a proxy can decide which future
FSFE wants to better protect free software licenses from bankruptcy Posted Jul 30, 2012 19:39 UTC (Mon) by gmaxwell (subscriber, #30048) [Link]
The FSF is a tax exempt charity. There are special rules governing the disposition of the assets of charity in the event of its closure. If the FSF were to go bankrupt it would transfer the copyrights it holds to another organization which is similar in purpose.
The general concern expressed here is not applicable in most places. The concern is basically that the license is _effectively_ revocable (e.g. that new copies can't be made). This isn't expected or believed to be the case in most places, and if it is it's a problem independent of bankruptcy because software authors sometimes turn evil or crazy.
(The situation is not so tidy for patents, on the other hand, which is one of several severe flaws in some of the 'open patent license' stuff— it's believed that otherwise irrevocable patent licenses can be revoked in bankruptcy, a reason avoid trusting freely licensed patents held by anything but charities)
FSFE wants to better protect free software licenses from bankruptcy Posted Jul 30, 2012 19:58 UTC (Mon) by welinder (guest, #4699) [Link]
That ignores the period in bankruptcy proceedings.
In such a period the FSF would be in existence, but would be controlled
FSFE wants to better protect free software licenses from bankruptcy Posted Aug 12, 2012 21:22 UTC (Sun) by Wol (guest, #4433) [Link]
Except that most of the code "owned" by the FSF has been given to them under contract.
aiui the contract of sale forbids such. The trustee would have no ability to "sell on" the code, because in doing so he would be breaching the terms of its "purchase", and creating a copyright violation.
Just as any future version of the GPL must remain in the same spirit as the earlier versions - the "four freedoms" are your guide here, aiui any copyright assignment to the FSF says that the FSF can only relicence the code to a "four freedoms friendly" licence.
If the FSF can't relicence it as commercially friendly, then nor can a "trustee in bankruptcy" - at least, not unless they get a Judge like the SCOG bankruptcy Judge who redefines what words in the English language mean!
Cheers,
FSFE wants to better protect free software licenses from bankruptcy Posted Aug 12, 2012 21:36 UTC (Sun) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]
> If the FSF can't relicence it as commercially friendly...
but they were able to put in the wikipedia exception, allowing anything that was in wikipedia as of a given date to be converted to a different license that they didn't control (which includes it's own "or future version" clause)
If they can allow code to be relicensed under a different license that's controlled by someone else that you don't have such a contract with, what's to keep a couple such transitions from letting your code get to a license that is BSD under some conditions (possibly even only for some particular company)?
|
|||||||||||||