Re: [Savannah-hackers] savannah.gnu.org: submission of Zinac

[Simon Perreault]

This is becoming kind of a philosophical debate, but I'm willing to take the 
time to discuss such issues. I feel they are important.

On December 19, 2001 02:33 pm, Jaime E. Villate wrote:
> if you disagree with giving the user the coice of choosing version 2 or any
> later version, then you are not agreeing with the GPL.

That part I do not agree with. If I take a look at the instructions on 
www.gnu.org on how to apply the GPL to one's program (sorry, the website is 
down at the moment, I can't provide the URL), it clearly says that it's the 
programmer's choice to apply or not the "future versions" clause. Even the 
excerpt you pasted mentions that the application of the "future versions" 
clause is a possibility, not a requirement.

> If after this statement you still don't trust the FSF, I respect your
> decision, but do not expect the FSF to be willing to host your project in
> its server.

I don't think it is about trust, nor should it be. In my opinion, there is no 
relation of trust between me and the FSF, and it is only normal. It takes 
time to know someone and trust him, and it takes even more time to know an 
organization and trust it. I like the current products of the FSF (the GPL, 
its advocacy, Savannah, etc.), but I don't know the individuals enough to 
trust the organization. And building my trust on policy papers would be 
naïve, experience tells us that official papers and the less official of the 
kind. Do not take this personal, it simply takes time to trust. I don't 
expect the FSF to trust me either.

> Notice that you still have the option of choosing some non-FSF license,
> compatible with the GPL, and your project would be accepted.

I want my program to be released under the GPL, I hope I don't have to defend 
that choice. ;)

> > Does the "or" mean that the user is bound to the
> > latest version of the GPL, or that the user can choose between the
> > version 2 or any other later version?
>
> The latter.
>
> > If you answer the latter, you will recognize that
> > including the clause has absolutely no effect.

What I mean here is that if a defect is found in GPL version 2, it doesn't 
matter if the "future versions" clause is present: the user can still get the 
program under the terms of the second version of the license. To have an 
effect, the clause should say something like "If a new versions of this 
license is written, then the user is bound to the terms of the latest 
version."

> The GPL 2 says: "2, or 3, or 4, or ..." while you are saying:
> "only 2, neither 3, nor 4, nor ...". To me, these two statements are not
> equivalent. Do you see them as equivalent? if you do, then why do you
> accept the second but not the first one?

I agree, they are clearly not equivalent, or else I wouldn't be arguing. I 
choose the second statement because I don't know yet what "3, or 4, or ..." 
will contain. I want to review for myself later versions before deciding 
to change (or not) the licensing of my program. Also, note that giving the 
option of choosing a later version has no effect if a defect in version 2 is 
found since the user can still choose version 2.

-- 
Simon Perreault  <address@hidden>
Web: http://www.linuxquebec.com/~nomis80
PGP: $Web/nomis80.gpg