CVSROOT: /web/www
Module name: www
Changes by: Brett Smith <brett> 11/01/04 16:57:20
Modified files:
licenses : gpl-faq.html
Log message:
add "only latest version" Q&A from RMS
CVSWeb URLs:
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/licenses/gpl-faq.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.153&r2=1.154
Patches:
Index: gpl-faq.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/licenses/gpl-faq.html,v
retrieving revision 1.153
retrieving revision 1.154
diff -u -b -r1.153 -r1.154
--- gpl-faq.html 4 Jan 2011 16:47:48 -0000 1.153
+++ gpl-faq.html 4 Jan 2011 16:57:15 -0000 1.154
@@ -272,6 +272,10 @@
“Version 3 of the GPL or any later
version”?</a></li>
+ <li><a href="#OnlyLatestVersion">Is it a good idea to use a
+ license saying that a certain program can be used only under the
+ latest version of the GNU GPL?</a></li>
+
<li><a href="#GPLOutput">Is there some way that I can GPL the output
people get from use of my program? For example, if my program is
used to develop hardware designs, can I require these these designs
@@ -2158,6 +2162,31 @@
preference.
</p></dd>
+<dt id="OnlyLatestVersion">Is it a good idea to use a license saying
+ that a certain program can be used only under the latest version
+ of the GNU GPL?</dt>
+
+<dd><p>The reason you shouldn't do that is that it could result some
+day in withdrawing automatically some permissions that the users
+previously had.</p>
+
+<p>Suppose a program was released in 2000 under “the latest GPL
+version”. At that time, people could have used it under GPLv2.
+The day we published GPLv3 in 2007, everyone would have been suddenly
+compelled to use it under GPLv3 instead.</p>
+
+<p>Some users may not even have known about GPL version 3—but
+they would have been required to use it. They could have violated the
+program's license unintentionally just because they did not get the
+news. That's a bad way to treat people.</p>
+
+<p>We think it is wrong to take back permissions already granted,
+except due to a violation. If your freedom could be revoked, then it
+isn't really freedom. Thus, if you get a copy of a program version
+under one version of a license, you should <em>always</em> have the
+rights granted by that version of the license. Releasing under
+“GPL version N or any later version” upholds that
+principle.</p></dd>
<dt id="WhyNotGPLForManuals">Why
don't you use the GPL for manuals?</dt>
@@ -3363,7 +3392,7 @@
<p>
Updated:
<!-- timestamp start -->
-$Date: 2011/01/04 16:47:48 $
+$Date: 2011/01/04 16:57:15 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
</div>
