Quoting paul cannon ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > How about this scenario: > > 1- A hostile group gets control of the FSF (treachery, trickery, > bribery, lawsuits, ...?) > > 2- They release a new version of the GPLv4, which states that "this > software should be treated as released into the public domain"
Yes, this (less restriction) is the only GPLv3 scenario that could arguably injure the interest of coders specifying "GPLv2 or any later version" permission grants: Such covered code then becomes free / open-source but non-copyleft, against its owners' intent. Most would call that outcome (1) astronomically unlikely and (2) not very harmful, anyway. People worried about that, or just wanting to handle licence evolution manually through new releases with changed terms (caveat: necessitating agreement among all copyright holders affected) will eschew the "or any later version" clause. Those wanting FSF to be able to fix licence problems (e.g., resulting from court decisions) without needing a unanimous accord among copyright holder will include it. -- Cheers, "Send a policeman, and have it arrested." Rick Moen -- Otto von Bismarck, when asked what he [EMAIL PROTECTED] would do if the British Army landed.
