[Savannah-hackers] Re: Submission of Z80 assembler - savannah.nongnu.org

[B. Wijnen]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hello,

> Licensing under the "GNU GPL v2 only" is problematic.
> Would you please agree to license under the "GNU GPL v2 or later"?

I understand your position, however I have a problem with 
it:
If for any reason GPL v3 or later would limit the freedoms 
of the
end-user, most likely because it becomes like the BSD 
license, I do not
want to use it for my program.

I trust the FSF as it is now very much, and I am sure the 
GPL will not
be like this anytime soon.  But I don't know what will 
happen in the
(far) future.  I think it is a bad idea to make a habit of 
licensing
code with this clause, because removing it when the FSF 
would become
less trustworthy may be forgotten.  And anyway, all 
program versions
until the removal would fall under the new license.

These two things (not wanting to sign a blank contract, to 
be filled in
later, but wanting to allow good license changes to be 
made without the
need of contacting all developers) are a big dilemma for 
me.  I have
read the GPL v2, and I think the good side of things 
(having the changes
in the license for the code when v3 comes out) will not be 
large
(because v2 is exactly what I want, so if v3 is good, it 
will at least
be like it).  However, the potential bad side of things 
(licensing BSD
style) is very large.  For that reason, I would like to 
license it as
version 2 only.

I would be happy to add a clause to allow version 3 or 
later, on the
condition that certain parts of the license are not 
changed in the newer
version (or better, that certain rights are still (not) 
given).  Let me
know if that would be acceptable, in that case I will 
write such a
clause and send it to you for approval.  If there is such 
a clause which
is suggested by the FSF, then I would like to hear about 
this, so I can
see if it is acceptable for me.

Thank you,
Bas Wijnen

On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 10:28:32PM +0100, Mathieu Roy 
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm evaluating the project you submitted for approval in Savannah.
>
>
>
> address@hidden said:
>
> > A package was submitted to savannah.nongnu.org
> > This mail was sent to address@hidden, address@hidden
> >
> > Bas Wijnen <address@hidden> described the package as follows:
> > License: gpl
> > Other License: The license is GPL version 2, not later.
>
> Licensing under the "GNU GPL v2 only" is problematic.
> Would you please agree to license under the "GNU GPL v2 or later"?
>
> The reason for this is that when we publish GPL v3, it will be
> important for all GPL-covered programs to advance to GPL v3.  If you
> don't put this in the files now, the only way to port your program to
> GPL v3 would be to ask each and every copyright holder, and that may
> be very difficult.
>
> We can explain the issue in more detail if you wish.  If you have
> concerns about "GNU GPL v2 or later", We'd be happy to address them
> too.
>
>
> Please register your project once more with the changes
> mentioned above.  
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iD8DBQE/pY4GFShl+2J8z5URAvGmAKCwvwUVEA6sjdzF3kP6ROhPSjQYDwCffT+s
7pmiItoqavfA7+sEoc+r5PQ=
=Goh5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----