Re: copyright files and GPL links
On Wed, Aug 22, 2007 at 06:00:51PM +0200, Bas Wijnen wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 22, 2007 at 05:05:33PM +0200, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
> > > Actually this is not a mistake IMO. The GPL symlink should be "the
> > > latest released version" (well, appearantly not everyone agrees about
> > > that, even).
> >
> > I might agree with that, but especially then I immensly disagree with
> > that we should point to there.
>
> But why? The copyright file may be read by the user long after it was
> written. So we should use a formulation which is still valid at the
> time they read the file. If the license is "version 2 or later", then
> that link is still valid, no matter how many releases there have been in
> the mean time.
But that link might point to v3, v4, vwhatever - and if we point only
there (like it is done now) we are not pointing to the license text we
were distributing it back then.
> As I wrote, I agree we should _also_ point to version 2. But there's no
> reason to _not_ point to version 3 (which at the moment is what the link
> should be).
I am just saying that there is no _need_ to point to version 3. And
there is a reason: We would need to update the copyright file every
time a new subsequent version of the GPL is released to list all the
choices the user has. Or you are losing your own reasoning of listing
all the choices.
> After all, the copyright holder did offer that license to the users
> (implicitly by allowing the FSF to make that choice for them).
The copyright holder doesn't have to ship all subsequent versions of
the license, so why do you think we would need to do so? Especially
like you said, "long after it was written" - i.e. written before v3
release (like, uhm, a tiny bit of software in the pool?) and read
nowadays?
> Now that it will (hopefully) soon be pointing to GPL3, it does make
> sense to add an extra link to GPL2. But there's no reason at all for
> omitting the link to the latest version.
See above, with every subsequent release of the GPL you are losing one
version if you want to list a complete set. And there is no need to do
so. But there is a need to point to the v2 because that's the version
we are distributing it _now_.
> > > We can choose to accept only version 3, and distribute it as such.
> >
> > Which we definitely should *not* do because it is not in the interest
> > of our users.
>
> While I agree we shouldn't do this, we still can, even while following
> the social contract, if we believe free software is benefitting from
> this choice. It's not as black-and-white as you make it. I get the
> feeling you have something against GPL3, but of course that's just my
> impression.
I have a bit more than an impression that you are hating the v2 when
reading that lines. I never said I have anything against the v3, but
you just said that you would work against both distribution method
upstream chose and limiting the choices our users have. Please
elaborate how free software would benefit from that.
The only reason that would come to my mind is that a depended library
switched to v3 (or later) which would require us to switch the package,
but that still is nothing about "our believes". So please, be more
verbose with what you mean with the above, or don't try to imply things
which I didn't say and I will stop with the same.
> If you do, unless you convince the team (which I currently don't
> consider myself part of, but that should change later), you are not in
> a position to change the license from "version 2 or later" into
> "version 2 only".
I am not in that position and never said that I want. Please _read_
what I write.
> Because according to you that is what would be the effect of not
> pointing to that link, following your reasoning that "it's version 2
> or later, see GPL" would make it version "lastest" only.
No. Please read again. By pointing to v2 you say that it is
_corrently_ distributed as v2, not that one isn't allowed to use a later
version.
> Assume that this link now points to version 3. The only things that are
> wrong then are:
> - Not all license options which are given to the user are listed (or
> linked to) as full text. Note that this will always be the case,
> because a new version may have been released from the time of writing
> the copyright file.
It's not about listing all options, because we can't do that: a.) the
v3 isn't in the pool yet, b.) a hypothetical v4 is neither ... It never
can be complete, because its not a dynamical list. Please read the GPL
again, you don't have to ship the "or later" versions of the license.
> However, it is totally clear that there is a choice for the user. They
> can choose to use version 2, even if we don't link to that full text.
Which is a policy violation and the core of my mail.
> If we want to be really complete, we could use something like:
See above, that wouldn't be complete. It might be soon, and propably
for a very long line, but bring us to the same situation once a v4 is
released.
> So you actually agree that not changing the copyright file when the
> license is changed into "version 3 [or later]" would mean we incorrectly
> tell the users that they still have the choice to use version 2?
No, it means a policy violation because it doesn't point to a "v3 or
later" in the copyright text, where "v2 or later" and a pointing to v3
fulfills that, because v3 falls under "or later".
> If we want to say "the latest version of the GPL", then we certainly
> should point to it.
And why would we want to do that? What would be the benefit to anyone?
What requires that?
> It seems you want to limit the user's freedom to choose GPL3 as a
> license.
"It seems you want to limit the user's freedom to choose GPL2 as a
license." Does that sound any better? Does that get us anywhere?
Please drop accusions that are all but wrong and doesn't help the
situation.
> > That way you tell them already that it's v3 licenced, if you point them
> > to v3.
>
> But it _is_. Since version 3 was released, the programs are licensed v2
> _and_ v3. That's the whole meaning of "or (at your option) any later
> version".
Sorry, s/licensed/distributed/, my bad with unaccurate wording.
[snipped lots of repetitions]
So long,
Rhonda
Reply to: