3 ms·

> "or (at your option) any later version" is probably the most insidious line in any license anywhere ever - as arguably the GPLv3 is incompatible with the GPLv

> "or (at your option) any later version" is probably the most insidious line in any license anywhere ever - as arguably the GPLv3 is incompatible with the GPLv2 without that. And it introduces a gigantic single point of failure with the FSF. If someone legally takes over the FSF, and publishes GPL 4 which is a BSD style license, then copyleft goes away for a lot of GPL software.

bombcar 6y ago
The FSF being taken over in that way is actually quite likely, given long enough time frames. It'll be interesting to see.
progval 6y ago
There is even a precedent of the FSF doing this, without a takeover. The FSF published a new version (1.3) of the GFDL license specifically to allow Wikipedia to relicense its text (that was licensed as "GFDL version X or above") to a CreativeCommons license. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_FDL#Compatibility_with_Creative_Commons_licensing_terms https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_FDL#Compatibility_with_Cre...
st_goliath 6y ago
While this is a scary, yet also somewhat possible scenario out there, the GPL license text itself goes to great extents to explain (in classic RMS speech style) the ideals of Free Software and the whole point of the license. It also says, that the FSF may publish modified versions of the license in the future which are "similar in spirit" to this one and alludes to the fact that the author of the software may have given you the "any later choice". To the slight dismay of some in my immediate family, I chose to study CS instead of law, so IANAL, but in the scenario you describe, I would try to argue into the direction that the hypothetical GPLv4 without copyleft clause is very much not "similar in spirit" to the intent outlined in the older versions in great detail, and hence should not apply.
- bombcar 6y ago
  The problem is you could have a huge legal battle over it. I'm frankly surprised that ANY lawyers signed off on the GPLv2 (as in, picking it for a company sponsored project) as the "any later version" and "similar in spirit" are quite open to interpretation. And all we'd need to see in GPLv5 or v6 is some line like "nothing in this license shall be taken as being incompatible with the BSD/CDDL" to open a huge can of worms. Honestly, if you want to do "or later" I'd instead just assign your code to the FSF to do with it what they will.
  - st_goliath 6y ago
    > The problem is you could have a huge legal battle over it. Of course, and it would be a real PITA, but I don't see how it would be that much different from a GPL violation law suit right now. If you publish your source code, even under GPLv3, there is nothing that really stops anybody else from taking it and violating the crap out of the terms and conditions. In pretty much all jurisdictions I'm aware of, the copyright holders are the only ones who can sue for copyright infringement (setting aside the whole "is the GPL a contract?" debate for the moment[1][2], which would also open up suing for breach of contract in some juristicions). You can slap any license constraints you like on your source code and publish it, but if you really don't have the resources to pursue legal action for violations to begin with, that already isn't worth anything and the software is effectively in the public domain. [1] https://perens.com/2017/05/28/understanding-the-gpl-is-a-contract-court-case/ https://perens.com/2017/05/28/understanding-the-gpl-is-a-con... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#License_versus_contract https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#Lic...

bombcar 6y ago

The FSF being taken over in that way is actually quite likely, given long enough time frames. It'll be interesting to see.

progval 6y ago

There is even a precedent of the FSF doing this, without a takeover. The FSF published a new version (1.3) of the GFDL license specifically to allow Wikipedia to relicense its text (that was licensed as "GFDL version X or above") to a CreativeCommons license. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_FDL#Compatibility_with_Creative_Commons_licensing_terms https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_FDL#Compatibility_with_Cre...

st_goliath 6y ago

While this is a scary, yet also somewhat possible scenario out there, the GPL license text itself goes to great extents to explain (in classic RMS speech style) the ideals of Free Software and the whole point of the license. It also says, that the FSF may publish modified versions of the license in the future which are "similar in spirit" to this one and alludes to the fact that the author of the software may have given you the "any later choice". To the slight dismay of some in my immediate family, I chose to study CS instead of law, so IANAL, but in the scenario you describe, I would try to argue into the direction that the hypothetical GPLv4 without copyleft clause is very much not "similar in spirit" to the intent outlined in the older versions in great detail, and hence should not apply.

bombcar 6y ago
The problem is you could have a huge legal battle over it. I'm frankly surprised that ANY lawyers signed off on the GPLv2 (as in, picking it for a company sponsored project) as the "any later version" and "similar in spirit" are quite open to interpretation. And all we'd need to see in GPLv5 or v6 is some line like "nothing in this license shall be taken as being incompatible with the BSD/CDDL" to open a huge can of worms. Honestly, if you want to do "or later" I'd instead just assign your code to the FSF to do with it what they will.
- st_goliath 6y ago
  > The problem is you could have a huge legal battle over it. Of course, and it would be a real PITA, but I don't see how it would be that much different from a GPL violation law suit right now. If you publish your source code, even under GPLv3, there is nothing that really stops anybody else from taking it and violating the crap out of the terms and conditions. In pretty much all jurisdictions I'm aware of, the copyright holders are the only ones who can sue for copyright infringement (setting aside the whole "is the GPL a contract?" debate for the moment[1][2], which would also open up suing for breach of contract in some juristicions). You can slap any license constraints you like on your source code and publish it, but if you really don't have the resources to pursue legal action for violations to begin with, that already isn't worth anything and the software is effectively in the public domain. [1] https://perens.com/2017/05/28/understanding-the-gpl-is-a-contract-court-case/ https://perens.com/2017/05/28/understanding-the-gpl-is-a-con... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#License_versus_contract https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#Lic...