On Thu, Aug 30, 2001 at 09:47:51PM -0400, Daniel Burrows wrote: > On Thu, Aug 30, 2001 at 03:04:52PM -0400, Jim Penny <jpenny@universal-fasteners.com> was heard to say: > > 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. I entirely concur with this. I wouldn't ordinarily send a "me too" message, but the assertion that removing "or any later version" violates the copyright on the GPL license text is completely erroneous. Where the language at issue appears is along with the copyright notice on the software, not inside the GPL license text itself. -- G. Branden Robinson | When I die I want to go peacefully Debian GNU/Linux | in my sleep like my ol' Grand branden@debian.org | Dad...not screaming in terror like http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | his passengers.
Attachment:
pgp7bkuzjdvsF.pgp
Description: PGP signature