Re: Plugins, libraries, licenses and Debian
M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
> Arnoud Engelfriet <galactus@stack.nl> writes:
> > This way the FSF can introduce a new version of the GPL and I
> > can use any software with the above text under that new version.
> > But if the software is only licensed under GPLv2, there is no
> > way I can use it under GPLv3 without the author's permission.
> > See e.g. the Linux kernel.
>
> I have seen claims that attempts to restrict the choice to one
> particular version are invalid. I can't remember the details right
> now.
Those claims are untrue. The FSF recommends the very construct
"version 2, or at your option any later version" precisely
because the default is just GPLv2.
If I write software, I am the only person who gets to decide
the licensing conditions. I can use the GPL version 2 as my
license. The FSF, being the GPL's authors, can make a new
version of that license. That does not give anyone the right
to use my software under that new version of the GPL, *unless*
I state that you do have that right.
It would be different if the GPLv2 explicitly said "instead of
this license you may also use this other license", but it
doesn't.
> All that seems rather obvious to me, so why write it down? Would
> there be another possible interpretation otherwise? If that's the
> case, why not mention programs that allow only one specified version?
It is good in contracts and licenses to spell out the obvious.
Otherwise someone else _will_ argue that it wasn't obvious
to him. And you do not want others to argue over licenses and
contracts they signed with you. :)
Arnoud
--
Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch patent attorney - Speaking only for myself
Patents, copyright and IPR explained for techies: http://www.iusmentis.com/
Reply to: