jellybean stonerfish <stonerfish@geocities.com> wrote in
news:DGbui.13195$eY.3321@newssvr13.news.prodigy.ne t:

> On Tue, 07 Aug 2007 07:32:34 -0500, John Hasler wrote:
>
>> anon writes:
>>> US contract law state that the latest is valid if it is a legel
>>> document
>>
>> And here we have the core of your error. The GPL as published by the
>> FSF is not a contract between me and anyone. It is a model license,
>> which the FSF suggests I copy and use as a license for my programs.
>> If I choose to do so my programs are then licensed under the terms of
>> the license I attached them, which happen to be copies of documents
>> published by the FSF. The publication of another model license by
>> the FSF is irrelevant to my license is unless my license contains
>> terms referring to it.
>>
>> Example: you lease an apartment from a landlord who uses a model
>> lease supplied by a landlord's association he belongs to. During the
>> term of the lease the association publishs a new model license with
>> different terms. Are you and he suddenly bound by the terms of the
>> new model license? Of course not.
>
> This part may confuse some people. Including me. This is in the
> gpl2:
>
> 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 Free Software Foundation.
>
> Then in your sources if you put: ( without the "or any later version"
> )
>
> 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 version 2 of the
> License.
>
> Does this mean that other people can not change it to gpl3.
> But if you use:
>
> the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
> any later version.
>
> Then someone else can release it as gpl3. And copies of their release
> follow gpl3 rules.
>
> Or am I way off and you are supposed to leave the line:
>
> the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
> (at your option) any later version.
>
> And then anybody can release your project as gpl3.
>
>
> So I will dig a bit...be back soon...I'm back.
>
> I looked at a couple of packages dejagnu perl-5.8.8 procps-3.2.6
> util-linux-2.12r vim70 zlib-1.2.3
> In these packages, many sources are a gpl. And there are files with
> no reference to gpl. Of the gpl licensed files most were like this:
>
> the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License,
> or (at your option) any later version.
>
> Most of perl is that way, as most files reference the README file
> which has the above.
>
> But in the other packages there were many files with:
>
> This file may be redistributed under the terms of the GNU General
> Public License, version 2.
> or
>
> This file may be redistributed under the terms of the GNU
> General Public License.
>
> So it appears to make a difference. Am I totally confused?
>
> stonerfish


No, actually, you are correct. If it says "any later version" then you
have no problem, if it says "version 2" and only that, then you are
stuck with version 2 and need to ask the author for permission. And, if
it simply states GPL, then you run the risk of having legal problems,
but can distribute it under future GPL 3 probably.

The key is if the author provided a GPL license or simply referenced to
such. For instance, if the author states that the product is distributed
under GPL and then provides a GPL model license with the "any later
version" claus missing, then you are stuck. However, if the author
simply states "This file may be redistributed under the terms of the GNU
General Public License" then you have a good faith belief that the
author meant up to date GPL and most courts should side with that
interpretation.

I think this is an interesting topic, considering that at the hart of
open source is the legal frame work that is as important to the movement
as the Linux Kernel. Less flaming and more reasoned discussion is so
refreshing to see on usenet, thanks :)

Any patent / copyright lawyers out there, would love to here some
opinions on the topic.

- Bogdan

jellybean stonerfish <stonerfish@geocities.com> writes:

>On Tue, 07 Aug 2007 07:32:34 -0500, John Hasler wrote:

>> anon writes:
>>> US contract law state that the latest is valid if it is a legel document
>>
>> And here we have the core of your error. The GPL as published by the FSF
>> is not a contract between me and anyone. It is a model license, which the
>> FSF suggests I copy and use as a license for my programs. If I choose to
>> do so my programs are then licensed under the terms of the license I
>> attached them, which happen to be copies of documents published by the
>> FSF. The publication of another model license by the FSF is irrelevant to
>> my license is unless my license contains terms referring to it.
>>
>> Example: you lease an apartment from a landlord who uses a model lease
>> supplied by a landlord's association he belongs to. During the term of the
>> lease the association publishs a new model license with different terms.
>> Are you and he suddenly bound by the terms of the new model license? Of
>> course not.

>This part may confuse some people. Including me. This is in the gpl2:

> 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 Free Software Foundation.

It is up to you to put in what you wish. If you want to do that then that
is up to you. It is then up to the user which license they wish to follow.


>Then in your sources if you put: ( without the "or any later version" )

> 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 version 2 of the License.

>Does this mean that other people can not change it to gpl3.

They can never change your license. It is yours. The question is whether or
not they can distribute their changes as gpl3. They cannot change your
license. It is yours. They can just change what they release their own
changes as.

However there may be an incompatibility. If gpl3 is more restrictive than
2, then you cannot release even your own changes to the code with a more restrictive license.
GPL explicitly disallows that.


>But if you use:

> the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or any
> later version.

>Then someone else can release it as gpl3. And copies of their release
>follow gpl3 rules.

Yes.


>Or am I way off and you are supposed to leave the line:

> the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
> (at your option) any later version.

The license is a suggestion, not a rule. You can do whatever you with with
your own code.


>And then anybody can release your project as gpl3.


>So I will dig a bit...be back soon...I'm back.

>I looked at a couple of packages dejagnu perl-5.8.8 procps-3.2.6
>util-linux-2.12r vim70 zlib-1.2.3
>In these packages, many sources are a gpl. And there are files with no
>reference to gpl. Of the gpl licensed files most were like this:

> the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License,
> or (at your option) any later version.

>Most of perl is that way, as most files reference the README file which has
>the above.

>But in the other packages there were many files with:

> This file may be redistributed under the terms of the GNU General
> Public License, version 2.
>or

As with the kernel.


> This file may be redistributed under the terms of the GNU
> General Public License.

This is ambiguous as to which version they mean.

It is of course up to you to sue if someone else then uses the wrong
license and you would have a hard time succeeding in your legal action
with such an ambiguous license. Ie the user could probably use whicheer
license they wished.
The courts might take into account if at the time you released it there was
only one GPL. Also note that you are supposed to include the license with
the software (under the GPL) and if you did, that would then be the
determining license.





>So it appears to make a difference. Am I totally confused?

>stonerfish