Re: task server

[Bas Wijnen]

I trust the FSF very much as it is now, and don't think I will have any
problem with later versions when they are released.  However, I don't like to
sign blank contracts.  This isn't a contract of course, it's a license, but
still.  My problem is that later, when the FSF has changed, a new version may
come out which is, say, like the BSD license.  In that case, I don't want to
have all my code licensed under it just because I used the usual formulation.

Of course I do see the problem that a new version of the license would be
hindered by this.  If the FSF would somehow make official (in a legally
binding way) that any next version will always keep the software free, then I
would not have a problem with it.  However, as it is now, I don't like to
allow later versions of the license.

This is a different case though, as I plan to transfer the copyright to the
FSF anyway, which means they can just relicense it themselves when they make a
new version of the license.  Therefore I hereby license the code to my task
server under any later version than 2 of the GNU GPL (in addition to version
2), at the option of the licensee, as is suggested in the license.

Thanks,
Bas

On Mon, Aug 09, 2004 at 10:43:24PM +0200, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
> Curiosity forces me to ask why you removed the usual ", or (at your
> option) any later version." blurb.
> 
>    +   This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
>    +   modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License
>    +   version 2 as published by the Free Software Foundation.
> 

-- 
I encourage sending me encrypted e-mail.
Please send the central message of e-mails as plain text in the message body,
   not as HTML and definitely not as MS Word.
Please do not use the MS Word format for attachments either.
for more information, see http://129.125.47.90/e-mail.html

pgp6zIjEY7Qp7.pgp
Description: PGP signature