Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 02:19:32PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: >> Please cite relevant text from the GPL. > > Section 9.
I don't see anything in there about the FSF replacing my license to Emacs 21 with something else. The part which binds me, instead of the FSF, is this: Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and "any later version", you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that version or of any later version published by the Free Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number of this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation. So I have Emacs under version 2 or any later version. I don't want any later version right now, so I'll take it under GPL v2 for the forseeable future. Where's the bit where the FSF can replace my license? >> I don't see anything like that. >> All I see is a common license from authors that software is available >> under the GNU GPL, version 2 or any later version, at the discretion >> of the *recipient*. > > I suppose you could claim that a loophole exists here, if the FSF never > receives a copy of your changes. But that doesn't have any impact on > other cases. Loophole? What does this have to do with a loophole? Let's say I've got some big modifications to Emacs 21.3 here. I send them to the FSF, saying that they are licensed to them under GPL v2. The FSF promptly tosses them in the trash, since they only take stuff with copyright assignment. OK, let's say they *really* want these mods, for whatever reason. So they publish a GPL v3 and... absolutely nothing. I don't see the replacement that you're talking about. -Brian -- Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
