OSDev.org

Erm, wrong.

The default wording of the GPL puts code under the current version of the GPL, or any later version, which effectively means the Free Software Foundation can change the licensing conditions on your code unless you take care of that little point (which, looking at GPL v3 and web services, isn't that "little" anymore all of a sudden).

Also note that §3 of the LGPL explicitly permits re-releasing LGPL'ed code under GPL.

Two more reasons why I would never consider GPL or LGPL for my code.

Solar wrote:Erm, wrong.

The default wording of the GPL puts code under the current version of the GPL, or any later version,

Actually AFAIK that isn't part of the license proper, just the recommended way of applying it to your code. You have to explicitly state that your code is licenced GPL version X "or any later version" for it to be in effect.

which effectively means the Free Software Foundation can change the licensing conditions on your code unless you take care of that little point (which, looking at GPL v3 and web services, isn't that "little" anymore all of a sudden).

Also note that §3 of the LGPL explicitly permits re-releasing LGPL'ed code under GPL.

Indeed, relicensing is perfectly legal if the original license explicitly permits it.
(Another common situation where this can occur is "GPL + linking exception" to straight GPL)

urxae wrote:You have to explicitly state that your code is licenced GPL version X "or any later version" for it to be in effect.

Correct, but it is the recommended default, and most people apply the GPL without a second thought because "it's a 'good' license".

(Another common situation where this can occur is "GPL + linking exception" to straight GPL)

Yep... note that it is not possible for you to apply the "linking exception" to a library of your own, as it is a modification of the GPL, which isn't allowed for mere mortals.

I have never seen a license with the text "Hey, you can relicense this dude."

Ooh speak of the devil, i wrote a program earlier you should all see... instead of uploading it i think i can just about fit the file in here.
I call it up yours you arrogant bastard, don't argue with Solar cause he burns good. And as you may have noticed the license allows redistribution under any license you wish.

Tyler wrote:

Code: Select all

//main.c
/*(c) 2007 Me. You may not redistribute or modify this code without my explicit written consent. */

#include <stdio.h>

int main()
{
puts("I like cheese");
}

I call it up yours you arrogant bastard, don't argue with Solar cause he burns good. And as you may have noticed the license allows redistribution under any license you wish.

There you go - I've distributed it under my own license now

AJ wrote: There you go - I've distributed it under my own license now

Your the first person ever to actually choose to use some of my code... i feel so happy right now its brought tears to my eyes.

ehird wrote:YOU CANNOT RELICENSE SOMEONE ELSE'S CODE.

EVER.

Even if it was changing "color" to "colour" in the license. You can't do that.

ehird wrote:I have never seen a license with the text "Hey, you can relicense this dude."

You would be crazy to relicense, for example, a public domain snippet; nobody would attend to you if the whole world already has it for free...

~ wrote: You would be crazy to relicense, for example, a public domain snippet; nobody would attend to you if the whole world already has it for free...

Precisely. Public domain is just about the only "license" that allows it, and nobody would use your version anyway.

ehird wrote:

~ wrote: You would be crazy to relicense, for example, a public domain snippet; nobody would attend to you if the whole world already has it for free...

Precisely. Public domain is just about the only "license" that allows it, and nobody would use your version anyway.

Don't ever be so sure about that; there are ways to make public domain technology as profitable as closed technology. That shouldn't be taken even as a license, because it's just a free known resource.

No I meant, the only license where you can relicense, but nobody would use your relicensed version because it just restricts them more for no gain.

ehird wrote:No I meant, the only license where you can relicense, but nobody would use your relicensed version because it just restricts them more for no gain.

Well.. What if you relicensed that public domain code.. and made lots of improvements and it diverged enough from the original code..

Some people might want the changes you made.. and be willing to follow your licence.. or they could use the public domain version and make similar improvements if able too..

I'd personally make those changes and offer maintainment to those sources, yet they would keep being public domain, maybe from the start, or maybe after making enough profit with the binaries.

(which, looking at GPL v3 and web services, isn't that "little" anymore all of a sudden).

Which part of GPL v3 do you feel contradicts the 4 freedoms the FSF defines as Free software?

All the criticisms I have heard about GPL v3 are actually criticisms of the philosophy of the 4 freedoms not that the FSF isn't upholding them in the new license. If the author of the code doesn't believe in all of the freedoms ofcourse they wouldn't welcome the new changes, which makes me wonder why they would leave the upgrade clause in or use the license in the first place.

Correct, I couldn't care less for the FSF's "definition of freedom" because I think it's a lie.

But this isn't the thread to discuss that. If you're interested in a discussion, send me a PM.