Re: Linux and GPLv2
Jeremy Hankins <nowan@nowan.org> writes:
> Måns Rullgård <mru@inprovide.com> writes:
>
>> If, one might argue, the author wishes for the terms to remain those
>> of the GPLv2, why does he not remove the "or any later version"
>> option? The answer is simple. Such a license is not compatible with
>> the standard GPL (with the "upgrade" option), since it has "further
>> restrictions", compared to the version allowing a switch to a later
>> version.
>
> That's not my understanding. The GPLv2 & GPLv>2 are logically distinct
> licenses, one can simply decide to drop the "or any later version" in
> code you distribute based on code with that clause. The no extra
> restrictions bit refers to the GPLv2 *or* the GPLv3 -- not both
> together.
OK, I officially take that statement back. I see the difference.
>> One common reason to use the GPL in the first place, is precisely
>> to be compatible with other GPL licensed software. Remember that
>> few (none?) copyleft licenses are compatible with the GPL, be it by
>> design or by chance.
>
> This is less a characteristic of the GPL in particular than of licensing
> in general.
Certainly.
>> Placing your code under the GPL, is placing a large faith in the FSF
>> not to change the license terms in a manner you might disagree with, a
>> faith which in many case may be broken, should some of the rumored
>> clauses end up in the final GPLv3 text.
>
> True, and given some of the rumors I'm rather skeptical about the
> freeness of the GPLv3 to be. But all in all I don't think the risks are
> that great of using the "or any later version" language. Worst case
> scenario is that folks discover they've given more permissions than they
> meant to.
Suddenly having your code out there, with a different set of
permissions than you intended, is bad enough for me.
--
Måns Rullgård
mru@inprovide.com
Reply to: