lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1998]   [Dec]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
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
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:46    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site