Andre Poenitz wrote: > On Sat, Mar 19, 2005 at 06:47:25PM +0000, Angus Leeming wrote: >> >> And I am still interested why I should sign not just GPL v2 (which is >> >> just fine) but also any following version including the one that says >> >> that FooBar Inc owns all my code. >> > >> > For convenience. >> >> Even less excitingly, because the current LyX licence is "GPL v2 or >> later". > > I noticed that in the meantime. > >> We're not trying to change the licence, we're just bullet proofing the >> desire to remove the XForms exception. > > I appreciate that. > >> > When a new GPL comes out and it is significantly better >> > than the old one, it can be used straightaway without asking anybody >> > again. >> > >> > If push comes to shove and the FSF goes "evil", it is still us that do >> > the releasing. Yes, FooBar Inc could release their own rip-off of LyX >> > under GPL v666, but it wouldn't remain the mainstream version for >> > long. >> >> Incidentally, does the FSF not own the Gnu and GPL trademarks? Ie FooBar >> Inc would be breaking trademark rules by releasing GPL v666. > > Unless they buy out the FSF first. > > It looks like I can't really resist here, however I am not happy at all > about this "or later" thing. I am interested to keep my code (well, at > least the part related to LyX) free and open in the spirit of the > current GPL. If GPL v3 takes the same path, it will be just fine, and > of course I can see the convenience point to have this "automatic > update feature" installed.
As I understand it, the intent is to take advantage of any *improvements* that GPL v3 will make. There are, apparently, holes in the current version. google on "GPL v3"... > But so far IT has seen quite a couple of guys jumping from good to bad > to in-between and the other way round (IBM, SCO, MS, ...) and there is > no guarantee that the FSF won't sell there ideals or will be forced to > do so to FooBar666 Inc at some point of time which immediately will > release GPL666. My take? Nothing in this world is safe, but we've got to make some reasonable assumptions to make any progress at all. > > I doubt that I am the only paranoid person in this audience, so why is > _everybody_ so eager to have this 'or later' thingy explicitly signed? > > Andre' > > PS: > >> Even less excitingly, because the current LyX licence is "GPL v2 or >> later". > > Am I right in assuming that this may be read that everybody is happy > with v2 and the LyX license could be changed to 'v2 only' without > problem? [Never mind, just thinking aloud...] Yes, that's right. A fork of LyX could reasonably be released with a v2 only copyright. I say "fork" simply because I want to emphasise that anyone can fork GPL-ed code at any time. -- Angus
