Re: [Savannah-hackers] savannah.gnu.org: submission of scsh-utils

[Jaime E. Villate]

On Mon, Jan 28, 2002 at 11:23:24PM -0500, Anthony Carrico wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Jan 2002, Guillaume Morin wrote:
> 
> > Sorry, I am afraid I've been unclear. We do not plan to host GPLv2 only
> > project for the reasons described in my previous mail.
> 
> Are you are referring to this statement, "the FSF doesn't want to accept
> that license in its hosts because it would be compatible with GPL v2, but
> wouldn't be compatible with the next version." I originally assumed this
> must have been a mistake in your wording. Is GNU really contemplating a
> GPL incompatible with V2?

GNU's licenses are, and will always be, compatible with V2. The license with
a compatibility problem referred in the above quote is "your license": by
removing part of the text from the original GNU GPL (the "or later" clause),
you have introduced your own license, which is no longer the GNU license.

> To clarify a little more, can I just register my current software as a BSD
> project in Savannah? Or must I actually remove GPL-V2 option from the
> software's license?

Use either the newest BSD license, or the original GNU GPL V2 (without
removing the "or any later version" clause from it) and your project.

> With those specific questions out of the way, I want to ask a broader
> question: Isn't it unreasonable to ban GPL-V2 only projects from Savannah?

I don't think so. Allowing GNU GPL licenses with modifications introduced by
individuals different from the FSF will lead to confusion and conflicts in
Savannah. You can create your own licenses (as you've done) based on GNU's
GPL; the result in your case is a perfectly free software license. But we do
not allow that type of license here to avoid conflicts.

> The controversy about "is the GNU FDL actually free?" should be enough to
> show that it is possible for GNU to mint a license that is, in some
> people's opinions, non-free. I would be upset if I published a major work
> under "GPL-V2 or later", and then GPL-V4 came along and allowed a third
> party to bolt an "Invariant Section" to their valuable new version of my
> work. Nobody can be sure that V3, 4 or 5 won't open this kind of loophole,
> and given the FDL, it even seems likely.

I trust the FSF; you don't, but that's OK we can still work together in
Savannah, but you will have to accept some minimum usage rules that help us
avoid future problems. Even in the unlikely scenario you describe --a third
party releasing a new version of your software that you cannot modify-- any
fourth party could still use your original work under the terms of GNU GPL
version 2, since the GNU GPL V2 license says that people can abide by the
terms of V2, V3, V4, etc; whatever they find more
convenient. Therefore, it really wouldn't make any sense for V3 to introduce
further restrictions to software distribution or modification, considering
people can circumvent those restrictions.

> Thank you very much for taking the time to answer my questions!
Keep in mind that I'm not an authority in software licensing and I'm very
ignorant on legal issues; there are better lists to discuss issues related to
the GNU GPL and GFDL.

Cheers,
Jaime