Automatic GPL termination

[Alexander Terekhov]

Just to clarify (in response to off-band inquiries)...

On 9/14/07, Alexander Terekhov <alexander.terekhov at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 9/14/07, Philippe Verdy <verdy_p at wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>
> (Regarding CeCILL license upgrades and mutation to the GPL, including
> future versions, if contaminated)
>
> > Alexander Terekhov [mailto:alexander.terekhov at gmail.com]wrote:
> > > I meant (hypothetically) future GPL version 6.6.6 or some such that
> > > would prescribe negative royalties. According to Philippe' logic, a
> > > distributor (me) will rightfully bankrupt him with no questions asked
> > > acting as a proxy in his name switching to new contract.
> >
> > So you are speaking about something that still does not exist. Such change
> > in the GPL would make it incompatible with existing GPL rules.
>
> But look, each new version of the GPL is genuinely incompatible with
> all previous (and future) versions of itself. That's the GPL design
> principle. Go ask Stallman and arch legal beagles at softwarefreedom.
> So your objection doesn't hold, sorry.

My point is that notices ala "GPL version X or any later version"
(practice strongly recommended my the FSF/SFLC) is NOT "multiple
licencing by itself". One just can't be a party to a contract that
isn't even drafted yet. It is simply a permission to sublicense. But
here comes the GPL itself insisting on "no sublicensing". The GPL is
utter legal nonsense and this particular issue of license upgrades is
just one example.

regards,
alexander.

--
"PJ points out that lawyers seem to have difficulty understanding the
GPL. My main concern with GPLv3 is that - unlike v2 - non-lawyers can't
understand it either."
                                   -- Anonymous Groklaw Visitor