www/licenses gpl-faq.html

[Brett Smith]

CVSROOT:        /web/www
Module name:    www
Changes by:     Brett Smith <brett>     11/01/04 16:57:20

Modified files:
        licenses       : gpl-faq.html 

Log message:
        add "only latest version" Q&A from RMS

CVSWeb URLs:
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/licenses/gpl-faq.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.153&r2=1.154

Patches:
Index: gpl-faq.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/licenses/gpl-faq.html,v
retrieving revision 1.153
retrieving revision 1.154
diff -u -b -r1.153 -r1.154
--- gpl-faq.html        4 Jan 2011 16:47:48 -0000       1.153
+++ gpl-faq.html        4 Jan 2011 16:57:15 -0000       1.154
@@ -272,6 +272,10 @@
     &ldquo;Version&nbsp;3 of the GPL or any later
     version&rdquo;?</a></li>
   
+    <li><a href="#OnlyLatestVersion">Is it a good idea to use a
+    license saying that a certain program can be used only under the
+    latest version of the GNU GPL?</a></li>
+
     <li><a href="#GPLOutput">Is there some way that I can GPL the output
     people get from use of my program?  For example, if my program is
     used to develop hardware designs, can I require these these designs
@@ -2158,6 +2162,31 @@
 preference.
 </p></dd>
 
+<dt id="OnlyLatestVersion">Is it a good idea to use a license saying
+    that a certain program can be used only under the latest version
+    of the GNU GPL?</dt>
+
+<dd><p>The reason you shouldn't do that is that it could result some
+day in withdrawing automatically some permissions that the users
+previously had.</p>
+
+<p>Suppose a program was released in 2000 under &ldquo;the latest GPL
+version&rdquo;.  At that time, people could have used it under GPLv2.
+The day we published GPLv3 in 2007, everyone would have been suddenly
+compelled to use it under GPLv3 instead.</p>
+
+<p>Some users may not even have known about GPL version 3&mdash;but
+they would have been required to use it.  They could have violated the
+program's license unintentionally just because they did not get the
+news.  That's a bad way to treat people.</p>
+
+<p>We think it is wrong to take back permissions already granted,
+except due to a violation.  If your freedom could be revoked, then it
+isn't really freedom.  Thus, if you get a copy of a program version
+under one version of a license, you should <em>always</em> have the
+rights granted by that version of the license.  Releasing under
+&ldquo;GPL version N or any later version&rdquo; upholds that
+principle.</p></dd>
 
 <dt id="WhyNotGPLForManuals">Why
 don't you use the GPL for manuals?</dt>
@@ -3363,7 +3392,7 @@
 <p>
 Updated:
 <!-- timestamp start -->
-$Date: 2011/01/04 16:47:48 $
+$Date: 2011/01/04 16:57:15 $
 <!-- timestamp end -->
 </p>
 </div>