On Mon, May 09, 2005 at 06:25:46PM -0700, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> On 5/9/05, Humberto Massa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [snip]
> > Batist, I think you are mistaken about the meaning of the "any later
> > version" copyright license... the terms are precisely '' 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. '' and they mean that said program is dually-triply-etc
> > licensed under the GPLv2 or v3 or v4 or any other upcoming FSF-GPL, at
> > the licensee's discretion.
>
> I used to think it extroardinarily unlikely that this formula, with
> regard to as-yet-unwritten offers of contract, would have legal force
> in any jurisdiction. The prevalence of similar terms in shrink-wrap
> software licenses nowadays -- which I abhor, and blame directly on
> RMS, Eben Moglen, and the FSF -- has eroded that confidence to some
> degree. If it were ever to come up in a court case in which I
> personally was involved, I envision disputing its validity to the last
> breath. (I reserve the right to do otherwise, of course.)
I'm confused. Why would an optional upgrade clause ("party X may offer
alternate terms for this software, which you can accept at your option")
like the GPL's be used in a shrink-wrap license?
I also don't understand why you're so opposed to it. Why should I not be
able to say "you can distribute under these conditions; in addition, John
may offer you a new license in the future, terms which you may accept or
ignore"?
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
