3 ms·
The worst that could happen is that there is a future GPL version that removes copyleft. If there is a future GPL version that is horrible for the receipient, t
by jordigh 11y ago
The worst that could happen is that there is a future GPL version that removes copyleft. If there is a future GPL version that is horrible for the receipient, then at worst that receipient can simply opt for GPLv3.
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-faq.html#VersionTwoOrLater https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-faq.html#V...
Clause 14 of GPL 3 also clarifies what later licenses can do. They must be "similar in spirit" and they cannot impose any additional requirements on any author or copyright holder.
edit: Okay, after seeing clause 14, I don't even see how a judge would interpret a GPL version without copyleft to be "similar in spirit", so I can't even imagine how that would happen. I think you're ok in accepting newer versions of GPLv3.
- im3w1l 11y agoIf FSF turned truly malicious, they could remove the "no warranty" section.
- jordigh 11y agoThat seems to contradict the clause that says no further obligations can be imposed upon authors or copyright holders. In particular, they cannot be forced to provide a warranty.
- maxerickson 11y agoThe FSF has in the past shouted "YEEEEHAAAAW" and done whatever happened to suit Wikipedia: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl.html#section11 https://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl.html#section11 I guess "Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0" is probably similar in spirit to the GFDL 1.2, but there was some large amount of top-downess in using the or later clause to help Wikipedia switch licenses.
- glass- 11y agoWikipedia's content used to be licensed under GFDL 1.2 or any later version. In order to transition to a more appropriate license the Wikimedia Foundation asked the FSF to release a new version (GFDL 1.3) that specifically allowed relicensing to CC BY-SA. The new license may be "similar in sprit" but what it allows relicensing to may not be.
- Dylan16807 11y ago'relicensing' is also still under the original license as far as I understand it. Isn't it still bound by the clause not to make drastic changes?