[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: GPL and linking

Batist Paklons wrote:

This however doesn't really change a lot about our discussion about
the GPL. It is my belief that the GPL is horribly drafted. One should
either choose the simplistic beauty of a BSD style license, or choose
a carefully drafted legalese text, such as the IBM Public License. I
grew up in a french culture, which chooses for the former, on the
belief that it is impossible to predict everything, so it is better to
leave out the details and set forth only general principles. The GPL
just fails short on both sides. Another concern is that subsequent
versions of the GPL cannot improve the language that easily, in spite
of the "any later version" clause. I cannot believe that any
jurisdiction would reasonably allow a "I offer you this on these
conditions, but a third party may change these conditions at will"
clause. There is simply no consensus on those future conditions. It is
effectively a license change, thus a change of contract, with every
possible consequence of notice and so on.
Batist, I think you are mistaken about the meaning of the "any later version" copyright license... the terms are precisely '' This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. '' and they mean that said program is dually-triply-etc licensed under the GPLv2 or v3 or v4 or any other upcoming FSF-GPL, at the licensee's discretion.

I am a defender of the GPLv2. I am not a defender of the GPLv3 because I don't know its terms yet... :-) I don't know why would anyone license their work under yet-undisclosed terms, but...


Reply to: