4 ms·
If the evil version 3.1 is more restrictive than previous versions, then you are right to say people could just ignore it. However, if evil version 3.1 is more
by ignoranceprior 5y ago
If the evil version 3.1 is more restrictive than previous versions, then you are right to say people could just ignore it. However, if evil version 3.1 is more permissive, for an extreme example say they changed it to a verbatim copy of WTFPL, then there would be nothing stopping people from creating a proprietary fork of the project, the very thing copyleft was designed to prevent.
- squiggleblaz 5y agoWould they be in breach of contract if they did so, or would some other legal recourse exist? The licence explicitly says: "The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new versions of the GNU General 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." A non-copyleft licence would not be similar in spirit. I could certainly imagine some proprietary code loving coalition seeking to control the FSF after RMS's eventual demise, so that they could create a new, non-copyleft licence. GPL 3 is aware of such concern: it says, "If the Program specifies that a proxy can decide which future versions of the GNU General Public License can be used, that proxy's public statement of acceptance of a version permanently authorizes you to choose that version for the Program", apparently trying to provide an alternative path to allow Linus Torvalds to accept only the versions he wants to accept.