Re: GPLv2-only considered harmful [was Re: GnuTLS in Debian]
On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 05:59:35PM -0500, Stephen M. Webb wrote:
> Nope. An organization that will not accept the GPLv3 because of the tivoization and patent clauses will not accept
> GPLv2 or later. The "or later" clause means a downstream can invoke their rights under the GPLv3 to demand secret
> encryption keys or upstream can revoke the license for patent action. These organizations do not accept GPLv2+ because
> it's effectively GPLv3.
Oh man, you can tell they never worked under the NM process under me
then, because that was one of my favourite questions.
The "(at your option)" is absolutely critical here. Those organizations
that have taken that line have missed this point. That's what stops
things like "tentacles of evil".
That version of that software will always be GPL v2, or if they (and
only they) like, GPL v3. It is their decision for that particular
release of software.
Now, the developer might choose to license under GPLv3 next release,
but then he/she/them could relicense under whatever license they
collectively feel like it too.
GPL-2+ means I release it as GPLv2, but any user of my software can
choose to have it under GPLv3. It also means subsequent developers
could release it as v3, but that could/would be a fork if the primary
development is still ongoing.
- Craig
--
Craig Small (@smallsees) http://enc.com.au/ csmall at : enc.com.au
Debian GNU/Linux http://www.debian.org/ csmall at : debian.org
GPG fingerprint: 5D2F B320 B825 D939 04D2 0519 3938 F96B DF50 FEA5
Reply to: