Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 29 Dec 1998 19:46:05 -0500 (EST) | From | David Feuer <> | Subject | Re: 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 dfeuer@his.com dfeuer@binx.mbhs.edu 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 - shendrix@widomaker.com - www.widomaker.com - 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 majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ >
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |