about licenses

[Rob Landley]

On Tuesday 18 April 2006 12:06 pm, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> hmmmmm ... that's a good point.  on the other hand, if you licensed
> your code as GPLv2 and GPLv3 came out and it had some *really* onerous
> changes, i don't see that you have any obligation to follow the new
> license.
>
> at the time you licensed, you agreed to GPLv2.  i don't see how the
> FSF could suddenly force you to re-license just because *they* changed
> their minds.  that would be equivalent to unilaterally rewriting the
> terms of a contract without the other person's permission, wouldn't
> it?

The right to continue to use the existing code under GPLv2 doesn't go away, 
ever.

Somebody can come out with a modified version that's GPLv3 only (which is also 
a compatible subset of "gplv2 or later"), but you don't have to use that 
version.  We could also decide to drop the "or later" from busybox if GPLv3 
sucks, but again you wouldn't have to upgrade if you didn't want to.

For now, "gplv2 or later" is a flexible position, and declaring GPLv3 
unsalvageable is a bit premature.

By the way, my dislike for the GPLv3 is fairly minor compared to Linus's, and 
he usually has a good reason for the stuff he does, as explained here:

http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/02/03/144250

Rob
-- 
Never bet against the cheap plastic solution.