Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 06:38:50 +0530 From: Rahul Siddharthan <rsidd@physics.iisc.ernet.in> To: David Schwartz <davids@webmaster.com> Cc: Anatoly Vorobey <mellon@pobox.com>, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: RE: Why are people against GNU? WAS Re: 5.0 already? Message-ID: <20000516063850.A18527@physics.iisc.ernet.in> In-Reply-To: <002a01bfbec5$2faec1c0$021d85d1@youwant.to>; from davids@webmaster.com on Mon, May 15, 2000 at 04:27:50PM -0700 References: <20000516044511.B8613@physics.iisc.ernet.in> <002a01bfbec5$2faec1c0$021d85d1@youwant.to>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > What it does not say is what you may do if the Program specifies > > a version number of this License and "no other version", or even > > a version number of the license without further qualification. > > I think the omission is either deliberate, because he didn't want > > to encourage it, or unintentional, but there is no ambiguity > > legally. If you specify that the GPL version 2, and only that > > version, applies to the program, that's the end of the matter. > > He doesn't just not encourage it, he doesn't _allow_ it. The GPL is > _owned_. You may only use and distribute it in ways that you are > specifically permitted to. Produce a statement saying that people are free > to use the GPL in ways other than those it specifically permits. You cannot > do it. OK suppose you're right (which is very unlikely). What then? The GPL still only talks of using later versions at your *option*. You can still use GPL 2 if you want. Scenario A: GPL 3 is released, people generally find it acceptable, including me. I imagine most people would move their code to GPL 3 in that case, and I'd use it for my code too. Scenario B: GPL 3 is released, I find it unacceptable, I don't want to use it for my code. Simple, I don't use it. As long as I'm maintaining it, I can continue to use GPL 2 for it. And if GPL 2 is incompatible with GPL 3, I can refuse to use patches given to me under GPL 3. The only way Stallman can take control of my code is by forking it and improving it to the extent that people prefer his version to mine. He can do that even now, without playing with licenses, in fact he was at the receiving end of that with xemacs and egcs -- but since the egcs copyrights continued to go to the FSF, he was willing to reunify it with gcc. If GPL 3 is sufficiently unpleasant, he can't even maintain control of the FSF code. It's already out there under GPL 2, on mirror sites all over the world. People will simply continue to distribute it under GPL 2, and maintain it themselves and fork it if necessary, and refuse to use the FSF's GPL 3 version. None of which will come to pass. The GPL 3, if and when it comes out, is not in the least likely to offend current users or suggest any "world domination" plans by RMS individually. Nobody will be prevented from using the GPL 2 on existing GPL 2 software, or even on new software. Downgrading GPL 3 software to GPL 2 may not be allowed, though. And by my reading of the GPL 2, even if a programmer specifies that only GPL 2 can apply to his code, there's nothing in the GPL 2 which stops him doing so. R. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20000516063850.A18527>