[darcs-users] Re: this is not licence advocacy

[Kannan Goundan]

--- Florian Weimer <fw at deneb.enyo.de> wrote:

> * Kannan Goundan:
> 
> > Aside: Has anyone wondered what would happen if someone (say, MS)
> > gradually infiltrated the FSF and created a permissive GPLv4?
> 
> Yes, but everybody would simply license further improvements under
> GPLv2 only, so this isn't a huge deal, really.

I'm sure that some projects develop at such a fast rate that the code
would be useless without future improvements.  But there must be many
instances where someone would love to take a current snapshot of
GPL'd code and make it proprietary.  Remember the recent $50k offer
on the Linux mailing lists?

> Some clauses in the copyright assignment contracts prevent a move
> the opposite direction, to a more restrictive license which is 
> applied retroactively.

Interesting...  As if licensing wasn't complicated enough already :)
 
> That's why I wouldn't worry about it too much, even if you think
> that RMS is an unpredictable lunatic (which he isn't at all).

I trust RMS wouldn't do anything crazy, but who has the legal
authority to create a "later version" of the GPL?  Is it some voting
committee in the FSF?  Is it just one guy?

Can we rely on the justice system to protect us ("There's no way this
new permissive license could be considered a version of the GPL")?


		
__________________________________ 
Discover Yahoo! 
Find restaurants, movies, travel and more fun for the weekend. Check it out! 
http://discover.yahoo.com/weekend.html