Re: Does this license meet DSFG?
"Anthony W. Youngman" <debian@thewolery.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
[🔎] MP+aBdFeudxLFwOe@thewolery.demon.co.uk">news:[🔎] MP+aBdFeudxLFwOe@thewolery.demon.co.uk...
In message <[🔎] 20100410130817.GQ25890@anguilla.noreply.org>, Peter Palfrader
<weasel@debian.org> writes
So I cannot combine a work licensed under this license with a work
licensed under GPL3 + SSL exception because the latter does not
allow downgrading to gpl2 (or upgrading to gpl3+).
I think you're wrong here. Being pedantic, NO version of the GPL allows
regrading. It's the "grant of licence" that allows the regrading.
Is this intentional?
No. Because the grant of licence DOES allow regrading, therefore what any
particular version of the GPL says is irrelevant. The recipient CAN change
the licence from GPL3 to GPL2 (or vice versa) because the *grant* gives
him permission.
Except the grant as stated in awful license grant posted appears to be
approximately the following the following:
-------------------------
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.
This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
GNU General Public License for more details.
As a special exception you may link this work with OpenSSL as long as you
comply with its license, and comply with the GPL v3 (or at your option) any
later version in all remaining respects, provided that the terms OpenSSL's
licence contain no additional GPLv3 (or the later version you chose)
incaptible terms relative to the version of the licences used by OpenSSL 1.0
in May of 2010, and under the condition that any recipients can upon removal
of OpenSSL use this work under their choice of one the following:
* no version of the GPL
* GPL v2 only
* GPL v3 only
* GPL v2 or V3 only
* GPL v2 or later
* GPL v2 or later (except for V3)
* GPL v3 or later
* only versions later than GPL v3
--------------------------------------
That is pretty much what the terms currently say.
I'm pretty sure that last part was not fully intended tro come out like
that,
but that is how the terms currently appear to read. That is why doing things
like seperately listing V2, V3, and post V3 as seperate items was very
stupid.
What the grant writer actually wanted was most likely:
-----------------------------------------------------------
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.
This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
GNU General Public License for more details.
As a special exception you may link this work with OpenSSL as long as you
comply with its license, and comply with the GPL v3 (or at your option) any
later version in all remaining respects, provided that the terms OpenSSL's
licence contain no additional GPLv3 (or the later version you chose)
incomptible terms relative to the version of the licence used by OpenSSL 1.0
in May of 2010.
------------------------------------------------
That requires users to abide by V3 or later terms while using the SSL
exception, allowing for any changes in the OpenSSL licence that do not make
the OpenSSL license less compatible with the chosen version of the GPL than
the current license is. (Changes that don't impact compatibility, or that
increase compatibility with the GPL being of course permmitted).
Of course that last clause could use a bit of cleaning up, and may have
minor grammar or spelling issues, but I think I captured the basic idea.
Reply to: