Re: Linux and GPLv2

[Måns Rullgård <mru@inprovide.com>]

Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org> writes:

> On Sun, Mar 13, 2005 at 03:24:24PM +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote:
>> We have to consider the possibility that GPLv3 will say something we
>> don not want.  Then we do not want people distributing it under those
>> terms.  Never give permission to do something you do not know what it
>> is.
>
> There's a more significant problem: if you say "or later", and you don't
> like GPLv3--either because it allows things you don't like, or (as
> recent events suggest may be more likely) includes restrictions you
> don't like, people can take your work, modify it, and place their
> modifications under GPLv3-only.  If you want to keep your code available
> under GPLv2, you can't incorporate those changes, since they're not
> available under v2.

Exactly my point.

>> The "or later" gives the FSF more flexibility to change the license
>> terms for a vast amount of software they really have no connection at
>> all with, with or without the approval of the copyright holders of
>> said software.
>
> The "or later" is intended, as I understand--from rational logic, as
> I don't believe I've seen any statement from the FSF--to allow the
> FSF to fix problems in the GPL.

First define "problem" and "fix".

> Without "or later", it's impossible: the only way a "bugfixed" GPL
> could be used is after getting explicit permission from every
> copyright holder of a GPL work.  Further, and just as importantly,
> the "bugfixed" GPLv3 would be incompatible with the original GPLv2!
> That would fragment the GPL at a fundamental level.
>
> That would be fine, if the FSF had maintained its traditional
> consistency.  Frankly, they broke that trust with the GFDL, and so
> I'd sympathise with people no longer willing to use the "or later"
> language.  The above problem doesn't go away, though.

Such language is fine as long as the copyright holder and the license
author are the same entity.  New versions of the license are likely to
reflect changes in the opinions of the authors, and they have every
right to make provisions for a modified license to automatically apply
to already released works.  The danger arises when people start
out-sourcing the writing of licenses to third parties.  The FSF has
its own agenda, and has little reason to consider the opinions of
others, who just happen to use their license texts, when writing the
next version.

-- 
Måns Rullgård
mru@inprovide.com