GPL compliance

[Scott Kitterman]

On Sunday 02 July 2006 13:50, Gary W. Swearingen wrote:

> A case (which I just thought of, I hope its OK) that makes the point
> is where a GPL licensor uses the "version 2 or later" clause.  (Note
> that "a GPL license" may involve more than the words of the GPL's
> COPYING file; the license language usually starts near the copyright
> notice, with COPYING included by reference.)  Then if version 3 says
> something (which it won't) outrageous like "you may remove from the
> derivative the text of all other licenses but this one", then the
> derivative would still seem to be OK, but anyone deriving from THAT
> software who did remove that text would be violating the T & C of the
> X-like licenses. I haven't thought about this enough, but since the
> X-like licenses wouldn't allow what the GPL allows (in this bad-v3
> with v2-or-later-clause case), I guess then these licenses would be
> non-compatible.  So legal could become illegal.  Again, very low risk,
> but it confirms my long-standing distaste for "or later" clauses.

I said I was going to leave this thread alone, but I just can't help it....

No.  The legal cannot become illegal.  v2 or later includes v2, so no matter 
what were to happen in a future revision of the GPL, the freedoms you have 
with v2 cannot be taken away.

There is NO risk here.  Please can we stop making stuff up now.

Scott K