"Thorsten Froehlich" <tho### [at] trfde> writes:
> You should avoid the current GPL.

No, you shouldn't. :-)

At least not for the reason given here:

> It allows the FSF to change the license in the future and the
> license allows to apply future licenses to your code rather than the
> GPL license version you decided to use.

No, it doesn't - I think the relevant quote is this:

    9. The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new versions
  of the General Public License from time to time.  Such new versions will
  be similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in detail to
  address new problems or concerns.

  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.

So you just have to specify the version number if you think this is a
problem.

> Legally they could even change the GPL to give them exclusive
> copyright or other rights and you could do nothing about it.

Unless you've heard that from a copyright lawyer, I wouldn't even
believe a penny of it. The license specifically says, "Such new
versions will be similar in spirit to the present version...". You
can't just take the copyright away from people without their
permission.

> Note that this provision is new and there was a lot of critzism when this
> new version of the GPL appeared (because RMS forced this condition into it).
> If you really want to use the GPL, use an older version without the "or any
> future GPL" clause.

It is the first time I've seen this brought up as a problem, but OTOH
I haven't been using Linux for more than 2-3 years. It really
surprises me. I guess the clause is in the license to make it possible
to update all licenses easily to respond to new usage situations -
after all the software world changes quickly.

Currently it is somewhat of a grey area whether using embeddable
remote-process components is the same as linking with a library or
not. A future version of the GPL will be able to clarify this issue.
It is in good hands in the FSF - those people really believe in what
they do.


(This is getting somewhat OT, but I don't think it would be fair not
to respond.)

-- 
Ole Laursen
http://sunsite.dk/olau/

Post a reply to this message