Re: Linux and GPLv2
Sean Kellogg <skellogg@u.washington.edu> writes:
> Missing from this discussion is a rather important aspect of this
> license... the law. If GPL v3 comes out with provisions that are
> even arguablly different from GPL v2 there will be all sorts of
> grounds for developers to strike out the 'or later' language from
> all prior grants of access to their code.
>
> It is a matter of equity that is a) critical to any issue like this,
> and b) all too often over looked by this list. It is quite
> difficult for someone to agree to terms they have not seen before.
In this case, terms that have not even been written yet, and over
which the someone has no influence whatsoever.
> More importantly, I don't see how I could possibly agree to terms
> propagated by a body that does not have privity in the contract
> (FSF). Unless you have assigned your copyright over to them (and
> may programs have) I don't think that language is going to be
> enforceable.
I'd go as far as to call it outright stupid to release something under
terms yet to be decided by a third party, legal or not.
> Of course, this assumes you actually want to take the matter to
> court... an act often prohibitively expensive for most FOSS
> developers... but then again, most of this conversation is academic
> anyway because it assumes people will actually dislike v3 AND that
> there is infringement ABD that the infringement is authorized under
> v3 but not v2.
Well, there are a few that dislike v2 already, or at least some of the
more far-reaching interpretations of it. Seeing as v3 will attempt to
extend its reach even further, I see it as inevitable that a fair
amount of people will have a word or two to say about it.
--
Måns Rullgård
mru@inprovide.com
Reply to: