Re: Software Licenced Under a Specific Version of GPL
On Thu, Aug 30, 2001 at 03:04:52PM -0400, Jim Penny <jpenny@universal-fasteners.com> was heard to say:
> > Flawed assumption. I think you do Debian and the policy group
> > a disservice by claiming that we shall, in the future, have such
> > little regard for copyrights and installed bases.
> >
>
> Actually, I think the whole discussion has been a bit off point.
> As I read the original email, the developer wanted to release the
> package under GPL with the 'or later version' clause removed.
>
> This is no longer a verbatim copy of the GPL. In such a case,
> should the packager include the entire _modified_ GPL,
> or include the original GPL with a rider clause in COPYRIGHT?
The "or later version" text is only found in a suggestion about how to apply
the GPL to your own code. The license itself only says this:
Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program
specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and "any
later version", you have the option of following the terms and conditions
either of that version or of any later version published by the Free
Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number of
this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software
Foundation.
(or, as is the case with the Linux kernel, you can specify one GPL version,
period. Given the increasing "RMS is a looney ranting commie pinko nutcase"
rhetoric in some places, I suppose we'll have to deal with this more often
in the future..)
At least, that's what a non-lawyer thinks.
Daniel
--
/-------------------- Daniel Burrows <dburrows@debian.org> -------------------\
| "You mean, you'll drop your rock and |
| I'll drop my sword and we'll just try to |
| kill one another like civilized people?" |
| -- "The Princess Bride" |
\---- Be like the kid in the movie! Play chess! -- http://www.uschess.org ---/
Reply to: