Raul Miller wrote: > On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 09:18:21PM +0000, Henning Makholm wrote: >>To make what I fear explicit, here is a fleshed-out scenario: >> 1. A writes a program and releases it under the current CPL. >> 2. B takes A's program, hacks on it, distributes his Contributions >> on a website under the current CPL. >> 3. IBM notices B's modified program and decides that they would like >> to include it in their proprietary program suite for frobitzing >> foobars, with private modifications that they don't release >> source for. So, >> 4. IBM releases new version of CPL which gives IBM carte blanche to >> do anything at all with covered code. >> 5. C (a strawman for IBM) picks up B's modified program, makes some >> inconsequential little changes and releases it under the new >> amended CPL - as allowed by the original CPL under which B >> distributed his changes. >> 6. IBM picks up C's distribution and starts abusing B's contribution >> proprietarily. > > The same thing is possible with the GPL, with it's "any later version" > clause. > > For that matter, the same thing is possible with the BSD license, > because it makes no attempt to provide copyleft protection. > > I don't think this is worth worrying about. While I agree that this scenario is not worth worrying about, the same thing is quite avoidable in the case of the GPL. If you don't trust the FSF for whatever reason, you can always redistribute under GPL 2 only, not permitting later versions of the GPL. - Josh Triplett
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature