> > I don't even see how this can be legal. As far as I know no contract
> > or license can make you agree to something that has not yet been
> > written.
> > Imagine signing your insurance papers and where it normally says
> > ``By signing here you agree to the terms of this contract'' it also
> > went on to say ``and anything else we add to it in the future.''
> > If I put my software under GPL 2, I think it should be MY decision
> > wether or not it goes to GPL 3. The paragraph above is saying that
> > I agree to license my software by the terms of GPL 2, and any terms
> > they decide to add later.
> > This should be interesting if it ever goes to court.
>
> I think this has no problem.. you as the writer of the code give away the
> rights to the everybode to use the code with the licence GPL v2 or
> any later *at his/her option*!!!!
>
> this is entirely legal.. I think..
IANAL, but IMHO that's not what it's saying.
Let's use the example of a mythical "FooSoft Un-Public License"
The FSUPL, version 2.0, states:
"Section I: No one can use software distributed under the
FSUPL unless they give $50 to the author."
Version 1.0 had the same Section I, except that it was $45 instead of $50.
So, this license is a non-public license. You have to pay $50 to use the
software.
"Section II (which is identical to section 9 of the GPL):
The FooSoft Federation may publish revised and/or new versions of
the FooSoft Un-Public License from time to time. Such new
versions will be similar in spirit to the present version, but may
differ in detail to address new problems or concerns."
'Similar in spirit' isn't excatly the most unambiguous of terms. Who
decides what the spirit of the original was?
"Each version is given a distinguishing version number.
If the Program specifies a version number of this License which
applies to it and "any later version", you have the option of
following the terms and conditions either of that version or of
any later version published by the FooSoft Federation. If
the Program does not specify a version number of this License, you
may choose any version ever published by the FooSoft Federation."
Let's say you release three programs under the FooSoft Un-Public License.
EggPlant Wizard, an eggplant management program, does not specify what
version of the FSUPL it is distributed under. Hairball Renderer, a
CAD-like application for rendering lifelike 3D hairballs, is distributed
under "Version 2 or later of the FSUPL." Reverse Trojan, which deletes a
few token files from your hard drive but secretly stops all programs from
crashing, is distributed under "Version 2 of the FSUPL only."
Since EggPlant Wizard does not specify a version of the license, people
can choose to use it under FSUPL 1.0, so they only have to pay you $45.
One week after you release these programs, the FSUPL comes out with
version 3 of the FSUPL. It has the same Section II as FSUPL2, but it's
Section I reads: "If you use this program, the author must pay you $50."
According to Section II of the FSUPL, people could pay $45, $50, or
receive $50 for EggPlant Wizard. They could pay or receive $50 for
Hairball Renderer. They must pay $50 for Reverse Trojan. If they choose
to use EggPlant Wizard or Hairball Renderer under Version 3 of the
FooSoft Un-Public License, and you do not pay them $50, they can sue you
in a court of law.
Looking in /usr/src/linux/COPYING, Linux does not seem to specify which
version of the GPL it is distributed under.
*prepares to be flamed for missing blatantly obvious things*
-- Matthew Sachs matthewg@interport.net -- random fortune quote -- There is a 20% chance of tomorrow.
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/