Re: Plugins, libraries, licenses and Debian

[Arnoud Engelfriet <galactus@stack.nl>]

M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
> Arnoud Engelfriet <galactus@stack.nl> writes:
> > The FSF recommends the very construct "version 2, or at your option
> > any later version" precisely because the default is just GPLv2.
> 
> The GPL FAQ says it is so any new versions will automatically apply to
> all software, without requiring a manual update.

The only thing I can find in this respect is
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#VersionTwoOrLater
where they say you should use that construct so that they can
fix bugs in the GPL and everyone can benefit from them. It ends
with "developers are not obligated to do this; developers can
continue allowing use of the previous version of the GPL, if
that is their preference".

> > 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.
> 
> FSF advocates that wording, and there are rumors that you *must* do it
> that way.  Be the rumors true or not, almost everyone uses that
> clause.

Correct, because the GPLv2 at the bottom says "This is how you
should apply the GPL to your program". So everyone who does
not understand licensing copies that phrase, and only the
small minority who does understand the implications and does
not like them uses GPLv2 only. The Linux kernel is one of
the few examples I know of.

> Of course not.  My point is that there are other parts of the license
> that are in much greater need of clarification.  After all, the GPL
> hasn't changed for 12 years.  Common usage of libraries and the likes
> has changed, and the possibly once clear definition of a derived work
> is no longer all that clear.  For instance, when the GPL was written
> very few, if any, programs used plugins.  Now they are commonplace.

That would indeed be very helpful. There have been persistent
rumors about GPLv3, but nothing substantial yet.

> there is a problem.  In an ongoing thread on linux-kernel, someone
> recently emphasized the importance of explaining things to the court
> in a non-technical way.  If the court doesn't understand you, they are
> not likely to rule the case your way.  This is bad, because it is
> often difficult, if not impossible, to explain some things
> non-technically and still be accurate.

Laws often try to be technology-neutral, which I think is good.
A law that is written for a specific technology becomes outdated
soon, or even worse may block new variations on that technology.
For example, most copyright laws have mandatory provisions that
permit home copying on tapes and CDs (if a certain fee is paid).
These laws often do not permit home copying on harddisks or via
networks, because at the time no one thought of that. 

And because law works with natural language, you need to be able
to explain the technical issues in natural language. Think of it
as having to write end-user documentation. 

Arnoud

-- 
Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch patent attorney - Speaking only for myself
Patents, copyright and IPR explained for techies: http://www.iusmentis.com/