GPL "v2 or later" may prevent merging back modifications? in practice, yes
GPL "v2 or later" may prevent merging back modifications? in practice, yes
Posted Oct 2, 2006 16:38 UTC (Mon) by stevenj (guest, #421)In reply to: GPL "v2 or later" may prevent merging back modifications? in practice, yes by mingo
Parent article: Busy busy busybox
He said: "their worst fears about the 'or later' clause".
Yup. And this is hyperbole...one can come up with much worse fears, as I pointed out at the end of my message; you're the one who is misreading what I wrote. If your "worst fear" about "or later version" permissions is that the FSF will add restrictions (regarding DRM or patents) you don't like, then your doomsday scenario is pretty tame—you can always stick with v2. The FSF cannot force you to add restrictions you do not want.
PS. I'm not going to take the bait and get into an ad hominem pissing contest with you. Please try to stick to rational arguments.
Posted Oct 2, 2006 17:17 UTC (Mon)
by stevenj (guest, #421)
[Link] (2 responses)
In case you haven't noticed, throughout this entire thread I've focused exclusively on the context of the "or any later version" permission. I believe this is clear if you read each posting in its entirety, as opposed to snipping out isolated phrases. (You're acting like I said, "Well, nuclear war is a much worse fear," when I said no such thing, and if you read what I wrote this is clearly not what I meant.)
Ingo, native English speakers rely on context and good-faith readers/listeners in order to make themselves understood. Only lawyers have to be careful to precisely turn every phrase to avoid any possible ambiguity, because lawyers have to prepare for people who deal in bad faith. Please don't make people who deal with you write like lawyers.
Posted Oct 2, 2006 17:41 UTC (Mon)
by bronson (subscriber, #4806)
[Link] (1 responses)
And yet you yourself have spent much of your time nit-picking Ingo's language and have mostly ignored his very clear intent.
Posted Oct 2, 2006 18:19 UTC (Mon)
by stevenj (guest, #421)
[Link]
Bull. All through this thread I've tried to stay on-topic regarding whether using "v2 or later" permission opens you up to some vague and terrible legal risks, and whether the FSF is fulfilling these fears with GPLv3 (separate from whether you agree with v3's changes).
Ingo posted exactly once in this thread (so far), and his points were (a) misreading my post to claim that I was not taking the phrase "worst fears" in the context of this permission, (b) making unfounded and irrelevant ad hominem attacks.
And I note that your post made not a single substantive point about the license language. Why are people so intent on changing the subject?
Lest you misunderstand me again, by "one can come up with much worse fears" I meant "one can come up with much worse fears in this context".
GPL "v2 or later" may prevent merging back modifications? in practice, yes
You said, Only lawyers have to be careful to precisely turn every phrase to avoid any possible ambiguity...
GPL "v2 or later" may prevent merging back modifications? in practice, yes
Bull
And yet you yourself have spent much of your time nit-picking Ingo's language