| 1 |
On Thu, 30 Jan 2020 08:19:08 -0500 |
| 2 |
Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> Really the main threat (IMO) is that the code could be de-copylefted. |
| 5 |
> They could make GPL v4 a copy of the BSD license, and now anything |
| 6 |
> that was v2+ is effectively BSD and can be used in non-FOSS software |
| 7 |
> without issue. I guess that isn't any worse than the previous case of |
| 8 |
> it instead being merged into some other v4 variant that you can access |
| 9 |
> the source for but prefer to avoid because of something else in the |
| 10 |
> license, except now you might not see the code at all. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
Its like we need some sort of statement people can use that says |
| 13 |
something to the effect of: |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
- GPL versions published after this release may be used, but contingent |
| 16 |
on the author of this release verifying that newer GPL versions continue the |
| 17 |
intended spirit of GPL2 |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
The idea that my code might be later under some other terms of license |
| 20 |
that I've never read is about as bad as somebody updating EULA/TOS |
| 21 |
without informing anybody it changed. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Its *probably* fine, but I'd want to have opportunity to read those |
| 24 |
before rubber stamping it. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
As they say: Trust, but Verify. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
GPL terms changing after an authors death should not really apply |
| 29 |
retroactively to the dead authors code. |
Archives