GPL compliance

[Scott Kitterman]

On Sunday 02 July 2006 16:30, Gary W. Swearingen wrote:
> Scott Kitterman <ubuntu at kitterman.com> writes:
> > 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.
>
> Sorry to trouble you and the list again, but I didn't make this up:
>
>    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 of the License, or
>    (at your option) any later version.
>
> NOTE^^^^^^^^^^^^^^  and no usage of "both" or "and" in the key phrase.
>
> THAT (and/or clause 9) permits a GPL licensee to distribute his
> derivative under ONLY ONE version.  (In which case it would't have
> left any choice to subsequent licensees.  It's my rather fuzzy
> impression that most GPL licensors pick only one, v2, glad to say, but
> many don't.)  So he could pick only version 3b ("b" for bad, for my
> hypothetical case).  And that could be incompatible with licenses that
> were compatible with v2 and still in use on non-GPL parts of the
> software.  That's what I meant by becoming illegal or whatever I said.
> Of course, it would be the publishing of that derivative that would be
> illegal.  Don't be so picky about normal English short-cuts.  (It's
> like how GPL promoters say that BSD/X software can become closed.  Of
> course it can't, really.  It's derivatives that can be closed, because
> derivers are given more freedom to control _their_ work.)

Oddly enough that's almost the exact answer to your point.

Once it's distributed (and you have been the recipient of that distribution) 
your freedoms associated with GPL v2 cannot be taken away.  So, as I said, 
there is no risk.  Future distributors may use a later of the GPL either 
exclusively and in companion with v2, but it is future distribution that can 
be affected by release of a new version of the GPL. 

There is no way that something you have already received can suddenly switch 
to a different version of the GPL.  

There is no legal risk to current users or their freedom to use software 
associated with uncertainty about what freedoms will be allowed under future 
versions of the GPL.  As you said about BSD licenses, hypothetical use of 
some future more constraining GPL version would essentially cause a fork in 
the program.  There is no risk for current programs that have already been 
released under GPLv2.

There are plenty of reasons not to like the 'or later versions' clause, but 
this is not one of them.

Scott K

P.S.  Once again, I'll declare myself done with this thread.  Maybe I'll 
manage to stick to it this time.