Matthew Seth Flaschen wrote:
>> Au contraire, my guess is that soon after there is
a final GPL v3,
the
>> bulk of FSF/GNU code will be relicensed v3-only
(and this is a lot of
>> code).
>> Remember, they can do this far more easily than
many other projects,
>> since FSF requires assignment of copyright.
>
> They would never revoke the GPL v2 license on existing
code. People
may
> be right that this is technically allowed under the law
(though from
> what I understand this isn't certain) , but it isn't
the FSF's style.
> They generally do not take back freedoms given. They
will immediately
> start licensing new code as GPL v3 only, eventually
making code FSF
code
> using only GPL v2 or lower obselete and essentially
making people
comply
> with GPL v3.
Agreed. You'll note I didn't say "revoke GPL v2
licenses."
Existing FSF code distributed under GPL v2 will continue to
be validly
licensed. However, I'm FSF will propagate (their preferred
new term 
v3 through their own code base as quickly as possible, and,
as noted,
since they own the copyrights, no negotiation with 3rd
parties will be
required. I'm sure the Gawk script for changing all (c)
notices
in FSF sources to "GPL version 3 or later" has
already been
written....
Andy Wilson
Intel Open Source Technology Center
|