Messages in this thread | | | Subject | GPL version, "at your option"? | From | Fruhwirth Clemens <> | Date | Tue, 16 Nov 2004 15:08:35 +0100 |
| |
Standard template for GPL licensing:
"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."
As the text says, the licensee can choose the GPL version at his option, and he is likely to choose the one with better conditions. So, newer version can never limit the licensee's right, because he is always free to choose version 2. Therefore, successor versions can only remove limitations.
The institution to decide, how the new versions look like, is FSF. Being totally paranoid, assume the FSF decision makers are infected by a SCO designed virus to make them publish a new GPL version giving SCO the right to exploit GPL covered intellectual property. And there is a lot of the latter. Would be a classical "Duh!" situation.
I'm about to submit a patch for a new cipher mode called LRW, adding new code/files to the crypto tree. My question is, especially to the maintainers: Are you going to accept code covered by the terms:
* 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, version 2 of the License. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
-- Fruhwirth Clemens <clemens@endorphin.org> http://clemens.endorphin.org [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature] | |