Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Front page to wiki now modifiable again

[Adrian Irving-Beer]

On Sun, Mar 21, 2004 at 11:38:01PM +0000, Mikhael Goikhman wrote:

> If you don't trust FSF (this seems silly for a GNU project), 

I don't follow legal stuff enough to know what the basis is for this
distrust.  But from the e-mail, it didn't sound like trust of intentions
-- rather, trust of quality of end product.  For all that we know the
FSF means well, nobody's perfect.

I suppose people use 'or later' because there may be unforseen
limitations in the current GPL that future ones overcome.  But if I am
satisfied with the freedoms and restrictions imposed by a GPL v2, it
seems wiser to use that than to license it under a bunch of hypothetical
licenses I've never read.

I guess that means that personally, if I had to choose, I'd pick v2-only
rather than v2-or-whatever.

Does using the v2 license actually prevent any content from being used
in v2+ software?  Can't you just include it with the appropriate
license notice?

Further, if someone wishes to include it in version 3 GPL software, can
they continue to 'sub-license' the included content under v2?

My guess (IANAL) is that the onus is then on the distributor to ensure
that if they distribute the program in a form allowed by the GPLv3 but
not by the GPLv2, that they remove the GPLv2 part.  (Which seems
perfectly reasonable.)

signature.asc
Description: Digital signature