Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 12:56:28 +0530 From: Rahul Siddharthan <rsidd@physics.iisc.ernet.in> To: Anatoly Vorobey <mellon@pobox.com> Cc: David Schwartz <davids@webmaster.com>, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: RE: Why are people against GNU? WAS Re: 5.0 already? Message-ID: <20000515125628.A48320@physics.iisc.ernet.in> In-Reply-To: <20000515100959.57288@techunix.technion.ac.il>; from mellon@pobox.com on Mon, May 15, 2000 at 10:09:59AM %2B0300 References: <20000514093934.10200@techunix.technion.ac.il> <001801bfbe09$ced4d120$021d85d1@youwant.to> <20000515100959.57288@techunix.technion.ac.il>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In fact this kind of head-in-the-sand misinformation about the GPL, which is so common in the BSD world, is why I didn't want to get into the argument again. This is not the only kind of misinformation: people also keep alleging that the GPL forces you to give your program to anyone who asks for it, and so on. Nobody who's read the GPL can believe such things, and it's not worth arguing with people who haven't. The "is RMS a communist" argument was much more interesting :) R. Anatoly Vorobey said on May 15, 2000 at 10:09:59: > You, David Schwartz, were spotted writing this on Sun, May 14, 2000 at 06:06:32PM -0700: > > > > > It is the choice of the author to use the words "GPL version 2 (or any > > > later version) applies to this software" or "GPL version 2, and solely > > > that version, applies to this software", or nothing (which implies the > > > earlier choice). The author has the choice. > > > > > > Anatoly Vorobey, > > > > Do you have Stallman's permission to make and use a derived work from the > > GPL? The GPL is copyrighted after all. > > I think you didn't understand what I was saying. You don't have to modify > the GPL in order to prevent later versions of it from applying to your > product. You need to *preface* the GPL with the statement that your > product is covered by this specific license that follows and no other > versions of it. The text inside GPL which allows a user to apply a later > version will only work if you did *not* preface the GPL by such a statement > (or if you prefaced it by explicitly saying that later versions will apply). > > So, for instance, look at the COPYING file of mutt: > > This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify > it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by > the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or > (at your option) any later version. > > Now if you were to specify explicitly that only the version 2 applies, > a user could not use a later version. If you didn't specify anything, > the user *could* usera later version by the power of the default clause > in the GPL. > > > You don't think Stallman would give > > up the incredible power he has -- he can change the licensing terms of every > > single piece of software covered by the GPL at his whim. Not even the > > individual authors can do as the GPL reserves the right only for him. > > That is also completely incorrect. An individual author *always* has > the right to reissue his product with any other license he chooses -- > proprietary, free, whatever. The GPL's restrictions don't apply to the > copyright holder. This has been used extensively in fact (by the author > of the GPLed Ghostscript, for instance, who issues commercial licenses > for early versions with new technology). > > -- > Anatoly Vorobey, > mellon@pobox.com http://pobox.com/~mellon/ > "Angels can fly because they take themselves lightly" - G.K.Chesterton > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20000515125628.A48320>