Rick Moen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > 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.
I don't think that's quite true: if the GPLv3 were to say, for example, that anyone using the code for an Application Service Provider would have to distribute code to all customers or users... that's not useful to me. I would not be able to usefully implement the benefits of others' code. Thus, the copyleft would fail there too: somebody effectively would have written something proprietary out of my code. If you don't agree with the above case, consider "If you are Brian Sniffen, you must distribute code to all customers or users" or "If you have not paid the FSF $1000, you must...". Why is one free and the others not -Brian > 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.
