Re: GPL "or any greater version"
> > What happens to the notices which claim:
> >
> > This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
> > it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
> > the Free Software Foundation; either version 2, or (at your option)
> > any later version.
> >
> > ?
On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 12:14:37PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Those apply to the parts the FSF wrote, certainly. For example, I
> would frame that sentence with "Some parts are Copyright 1902-1954
> FSF. About those parts, the FSF says:"
You seem to be ignoring the issue of presenting the distinction to later
users in a clear fashion.
"Email me to find out copyright terms" is not an appropriate copyright
notice. What happens in copyright terms if the email bounces, for
example?
"Read the change log to figure out what terms apply where" is not an
appropriate copyright notice, either. Changelogs are inadequate for
that purpose.
> > For that matter, what happens after a few hundred revisions where 12
> > people have asserted something like: yeah that's true but it's not really
> > true for the part I own, contact me for the details.
> >
> > ?
>
> The same thing that happens whenever a bunch of compatibly-licensed
> programs are combined: a really big copyright file.
I don't think you understand what I'm asking. I'm asking about how
you expect the boundaries between the incompatible parts (where future
versions of the GPL are allowed and where they're not) are meant to be
maintained. The copyright file won't work for that, unless you place
further restrictions on how people edit the program.
But you're not allowed to place further restrictions.
> >> Yes, they only need to keep the copyright notice accurate.
> >
> > The GPL requires that copyright notices be kept intact.
> >
> > If you think that "kept intact" includes "being modified so they no longer
> > say the same thing", I'd like to see some reason for agreeing with you.
>
> You're right that it's probably better not to change the text, but
> simply to set context appropriately. The term "This program," for
> example, has a very specific referrant -- it was written by the
> copyright holder for the initial version, not the modifications.
Except, section 2 requires that if you choose to distribute the modified
program you distribute the modifications such that "this program" also
refers to the modifications.
> >> > Which leaves me wondering: does "keep the copyright notice intact" mean
> >> > that everyone is required to update notices in an ever more complicated
> >> > fashion as code is updated, or does it just mean not changing them
> >> > except in some trivial fashion [such as including them on new media,
> >> > as everyone who distributed using new media is required to do that]?
> >> > [My bet would be on the latter.]
> >>
> >> The former. Go read the law, or read the GPL where it talks about
> >> dated notices of any change. That requirement is there for a reason.
> >
> > Which law, specifically?
>
> No time for that at work, but I'll look for a cite over the weekend.
Let's save this discussion until you have time to participate in it.
--
Raul
Reply to: