[lkml]   [1998]   [Dec]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: Article: IBM wants to "clean up the license" of Linux
    This message is _recommended_ by the FSF.  If you want version 2, say
    version 2. If you want version 1, say version 1 (highly unlikely). If
    you want the user to take his pick, say "or any later version".

    David Feuer
    Open Source: Think locally; act globally.
    On Tue, 29 Dec 1998, C S Hendrix wrote:

    > In message <Pine.LNX.3.96.981229030438.510D-100000@red.prv>, "Mike A. Harris" w
    > rites:
    > > On Sun, 27 Dec 1998, Zack Brown wrote:
    > >
    > > >If Richard Stallman gets mad at the linux community for not using the term
    > > >gnu/linux and decides to release a new version of the GPL that undoes its
    > > >current meaning (and e.g. allows proprietary forking etc), thus affecting
    > > >all programs currently licenced under the GPL, what could anyone do about
    > > >that? And please don't say, "oh, he would *never* do something like that."
    > > >
    > > >Shake in your boots.
    > > >
    > > > 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.
    > > >
    > > > -- /usr/src/linux/COPYING, line 308-311
    > >
    > > AFAIR that statement is recommended to append to your program's
    > > source and/or display. If you say "This program is GPL version 2
    > > period" I believe it is then GPL 2 period, regardless of wether a
    > > 3 comes out. Richard, do you care to clarify this?
    > I don't even see how this can be legal. As far as I know no contract
    > or license can make you agree to something that has not yet been
    > written.
    > Imagine signing your insurance papers and where it normally says
    > ``By signing here you agree to the terms of this contract'' it also
    > went on to say ``and anything else we add to it in the future.''
    > If I put my software under GPL 2, I think it should be MY decision
    > wether or not it goes to GPL 3. The paragraph above is saying that
    > I agree to license my software by the terms of GPL 2, and any terms
    > they decide to add later.
    > This should be interesting if it ever goes to court.
    > > Also, keep in mind that probably 90% (total random guess) of all
    > > software out there that claims it is GPL, does not follow the
    > > guidelines of the GPL properly, and display the proper messages,
    > > etc.
    > Well, the reason for this might be because it is annoying for a
    > program to do that. It should only do so if you ask for help and
    > the version, and then do so briefly. It's almost as annoying as
    > any kind of art or writing with trademark and copyright notices.
    > --
    > Shannon - - - Linux 2.0.x
    > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    > "Microsoft should switch to the vacuum cleaner business where people
    > actually want products that suck." -- Bruno Bratti (i think)
    > -
    > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    > the body of a message to
    > Please read the FAQ at

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:46    [W:0.023 / U:7.440 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site