It's not exactly blank cheque

Posted Aug 12, 2009 12:26 UTC (Wed) by SEMW (guest, #52697)
In reply to: It's not exactly blank cheque by khim
Parent article: A new GCC runtime library license snag?

> Yes this is what millions of authors do every single time they release something. Some licenses don't
> even include opt-out - like widely used Creative Commons licenses, for example.

I've just skimmed through several sample creative commons licenses, and can't see any "or later version" clauses, let alone mandatory ones. The page for all licenses before the current one even explicitely say "A new version of this license is available. ... No works are automatically put under the new license...". Are you sure you're not mistaken?

> If they are big enough to ignore advice (included in the text of license they selected, no less!) they should be big enough to deal with fallout...

Are you suggesting that anyone -- the git authors, Debian, the FSF, whoever -- knew about this before very recently? If you're saying that this side-effect was known when the git authors chose the license, then say so explicitly; the article certainly does not give that impression (and even explicitly says that, in the FSF's case, "This is a perverse result that, probably, was not envisioned or desired...").

Have you actully read the license?

Posted Aug 14, 2009 10:37 UTC (Fri) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link]

I've just skimmed through several sample creative commons licenses, and can't see any "or later version" clauses, let alone mandatory ones.

Is this a joke? Have you read the legal code?

You may Distribute or Publicly Perform an Adaptation only under the terms of: (i) this License; (ii) a later version of this License with the same License Elements as this License; (iii) a Creative Commons jurisdiction license (either this or a later license version) that contains the same License Elements as this License (e.g., Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 US)); (iv) a Creative Commons Compatible License.

Version upgrade is emebedded in the text of the license and it's not an option. Sure, you can not change the license for original work, but should you add one line to it... you are free to upgrade.

Are you suggesting that anyone -- the git authors, Debian, the FSF, whoever -- knew about this before very recently?

Kind of. FSF knew about the problem in general back in 1991 - that's why it included paragraph 9 in first place. Then some people decided that they don't trust FSF enough to allow combining of their code with FSF's code released under new GPLv3 (and later) licenses. Fair enough - but then obviously they are the only ones who can say if libgcc's code is Ok with them or not. If they knew nothing about licensing and ramifications then why they fiddled around with this stuff?