On Wed, 10 Dec 2003, Glenn Maynard wrote: > On Wed, Dec 10, 2003 at 10:28:57PM +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote: > > FSF advocates that wording, and there are rumors that you *must* do it > > that way. Be the rumors true or not, almost everyone uses that > > clause. > > I believe that's the main reason for not removing that clause: > software without it will cause major license compatibility problems > down the road.
The clause has a more important purpose in the case of GPLed works with multiple authors, especially when one or more of those authors is unreachable. If for example, a case like SCO v IBM results in a verdict that invalidates specific clauses of the GPL, the FSF would (most likely) produce a new version of the license that cleared up the invalid clauses. Works without the "or later version at your option" clause might not be distributeable until all copyright holders agree on the new license. Works with the clause will just automatically be able to use the new version of the GPL. > Due to the GFDL debacle, I no longer trust the FSF's conception of > "free" [...] so I'm starting to avoid the GPL for my own work. I hope we'll see a change in this area, but until we do, I understand your concern. Don Armstrong -- The sheer ponderousness of the panel's opinion ... refutes its thesis far more convincingly than anything I might say. The panel's labored effort to smother the Second Amendment by sheer body weight has all the grace of a sumo wrestler trying to kill a rattlesnake by sitting on it--and is just as likely to succeed. -- Alex Kozinski in Silveira V Lockyer http://www.donarmstrong.com http://www.anylevel.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
