Two GPL Questions

[David Johnson]

On Sunday 09 December 2001 11:12 am, Kenny Tilton wrote:
> I was about to release some new stuff of mine under the GNU GPL when I
> noticed something. Not sure of its implications. Any insight
> appreciated:
> ...
> Well, I just noticed that this clause is not all-encompassing. Not
> mentioned is the case where the Program specifies a version number
> /without/ adding allowance for "any later version".

Specifying the GPL v2 means that you always know in advance what the 
licensing on your software is. Specifying GPL v2 or later means that someone 
else is in control of your licensing. On the other hand, Linux is licensed 
under GPLv2 only, with a thousand different copyright owners, so that if the 
GPL v3 is more appropriate, the odds of getting the license changed or next 
to nil.

My opinion is to specify a version. If a newer version of the license comes 
out and you like that version better, just update manually. If you get 
contributions, ask for them to be submitted under "v2 or later", so that 
whether or not you update your version later on everything will stay in sync.

> The funny thing is, when I looked at all the other licenses approved by
> the FSF, the only one I saw with a copyleft was the GNU GPL. So here I
> am ready to be a second GNU GPL-compatible copyleft license, but I
> cannot use the GNU GPL as a head start, I have to find uncopyrighted
> licenses, break open my book on Software licensing, etc etc.

The only GPL compatible copyleft licenses are the GPL and the LGPL (since the 
latter allows relicensing as the GPL). One of the side effects of strong 
copyleft is a predominance of one license. I mean, no one gives a hoot about 
MPL compatibility :-)

> What exactly does it do for FSF to lock up the GNU GPL that way? Sounds
> again like control, tho in this case it is more just an inconvenience to
> draw up a license without being able to use GGPL language.

Perhaps you might want to look at another license altogether.  There are 
several weak to moderate copyleft licenses (MPL, QPL, etc) that may fit your 
needs without making you feel cheap-and-easy for using them. Or maybe 
copyleft just isn't for you. Copyleft is all about being in control of the 
software, despite the FSF's protestations to the contrary. Maybe the BSD or 
MIT licenses would be more to your liking.

-- 
David Johnson
___________________
http://www.usermode.org
pgp public key on website
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3