Re: [glob2-devel] Version 3 of GPL license issued yesterday

[Cyrille Dunant]

On Thursday 05 July 2007 11.20:15 Martin Voelkle wrote:
> On 7/5/07, Cyrille Dunant <address@hidden> wrote:
> > > > You might want to check on the GNU's project site, then :)
> > >
> > > I can't find anything on upgrading (or not being able to upgrade) the
> > > "or any later version" clause. Do you have any pointers?
> >
> > Quoth the FSF:
> >
> > Q: "Why should programs say "Version 2 of the GPL or any later version"?"
> >
> > A: [...]
> >
> >  Suppose a program says "Version 2 of the GPL or any later version" and a
> > new version of the GPL is released. If the new GPL version gives
> > additional permission, that permission will be available immediately to
> > all the users of the program. But if the new GPL version has a tighter
> > requirement [this is the case of v3], it will not restrict use of the
> > current version of the program, because it can still be used under GPL
> > version 2. When a program says "Version 2 of the GPL or any later
> > version", users will always be permitted to use it, and even change it,
> > according to the terms of GPL version 2--even after later versions of the
> > GPL are available.
> >
> >  If a tighter requirement in a new version of the GPL need not be obeyed
> > for existing software, how is it useful? Once GPL version 3 is available,
> > the developers of most GPL-covered programs will release subsequent
> > versions of their programs specifying "Version 3 of the GPL or any later
> > version". Then users will have to follow the tighter requirements in GPL
> > version 3, for subsequent versions of the program.
> >
> > [...]
>
> It's not clear to me whether these developers must hold the copyright
> of the original work in order to license a copy under v3 or later. Of
> course it would not change the v2 or later of the original work.
>
> Brett Smith (from FSF) states it more clearly:
> It definitely should be possible, however. There are lots of good
> reasons to upgrade to GPLv3, and we'll be happy to do what we can to
> help projects that are interested in making the switch. Licenses
> aren't designed to be permanent, so it's important to have some kind
> of structure to make upgrades easy. The FSF has collected copyright
> assignments to do this for GNU programs, and the SFLC has been helping
> developers establish other ways to achieve this goal.
> http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20070501092619462
>
> So you need copyright indeed.
>
> > Me:
> > note that if your future contributions are GPL v3, this does not make all
> > the previous contributions v3. They stay v2
>
> Sure, but the combined work (i.e. the new version that incorporates
> the contribution) is only available as v3.
>
> > v2 and v3 are incompatible ('tis is what the FSF says, and it is
> > reasonable) , and the "or above" which makes them compatible is illegal
> > at least in Switzerland, thus, to relicense the code as v3 or above, you
> > _need_ the permission of the authors.
>
> Very interesting. Do you have a public source for the interpretation
> of GPL in Switzerland?

It stems from the fact that a contract with hidden terms is invalid, it is not 
an interpretation, it is a (good) fact of life.

Do you think a contract signed on paper where you say "I am Cyrille's slave" 
is valid ?

-- 
-- Cyrille Dunant
-- EPFL-IMX-LMC 
--

   "It took me fifteen years to discover that I had no talent for writing,
but I couldn't give up because by that time I was too famous."
                -- Robert Benchly

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.