M?ns Rullg?rd wrote: > Arnoud Engelfriet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > This way the FSF can introduce a new version of the GPL and I > > can use any software with the above text under that new version. > > But if the software is only licensed under GPLv2, there is no > > way I can use it under GPLv3 without the author's permission. > > See e.g. the Linux kernel. > > I have seen claims that attempts to restrict the choice to one > particular version are invalid. I can't remember the details right > now.
Those claims are untrue. The FSF recommends the very construct "version 2, or at your option any later version" precisely because the default is just GPLv2. If I write software, I am the only person who gets to decide the licensing conditions. I can use the GPL version 2 as my license. The FSF, being the GPL's authors, can make a new version of that license. That does not give anyone the right to use my software under that new version of the GPL, *unless* I state that you do have that right. It would be different if the GPLv2 explicitly said "instead of this license you may also use this other license", but it doesn't. > All that seems rather obvious to me, so why write it down? Would > there be another possible interpretation otherwise? If that's the > case, why not mention programs that allow only one specified version? It is good in contracts and licenses to spell out the obvious. Otherwise someone else _will_ argue that it wasn't obvious to him. And you do not want others to argue over licenses and contracts they signed with you. :) Arnoud -- Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch patent attorney - Speaking only for myself Patents, copyright and IPR explained for techies: http://www.iusmentis.com/
