[vox-tech] Self-replacing license [was Urgent news: Linux may be relicensed]

[Micah Cowan]

Rick Moen wrote:
> Quoting Micah Cowan (micah at cowan.name):
> 
> 
>>As an /author/, I elect GPLv2 (no "or later").
> 
> 
> As an author, you have no downside from "or later" if FSF issues a
> proprietary-leaning GPLv3, because (1) your recipients can always reject
> it and elect GPLv2, and (2) you would probably follow up latest release
> n with an n.001 that newly omitted the "or later".

(2) is more or less pointless, though, as the code is already available 
to people in GPLv3 now, until I (or others) have added sufficient code 
to make it less attractive to "downgrade" to an older version of the 
software. (2) is also impossible to execute if it is a collective-work, 
collaboratively authored by enough other people that it would be 
impractical to obtain their permission. This is, of course, still 
assuming that the paragraph I indicated earlier as being an obvious 
misinterpretation, is in fact what I claim it to be.


> I.e., obviously the threat of then forking release n-or-less under FSF's
> new restrictive terms isn't of concern.

Less restrictive, more restrictive... licensing is a balance between 
restriction on the developer and restriction on the user. GPL is 
relatively liberating to the user, and relatively restrictive to the 
developer (as a consequence, not as an intention). Proprietary licenses 
are liberating to the developer (well, no: IP owner) and restrictive to 
the user.

But if the GPL were to step a little further past the edge of what I 
deem reasonable to give up as my owner privileges, that's when the "or 
later" becomes a problem to me as an author. While I cannot imagine a 
specific example, I'm sure it could exist.

A little more possible: it could simultaneously be both more restrictive 
and more liberating in separate ways... or just more "different" in ways 
that I don't condone.

The bottom line is that I want the person who decides the limits of what 
can happen to my code to be me, and no one else. This is why I dislike 
using the "or later."

>>However, there is an interesting situation: when I'm both recipient and 
>>author (as in the case of modifying-and-distributing).
> 
> Then, you enjoy rights over the codebase without needing to accept the
> licence on any instance of it in the first place.

I'm having problems parsing that sentence.

But certainly, I enjoy only the rights specifically granted to me by the 
license notice that is (hopefully) at the top of each source code file. 
My understanding of the "or later" bit is that, if it is included, I 
could actually remove the "or later" part from all of the source code, 
and re-release it with my changes. But I would not feel comfortable 
doing so, and am still not entirely certain that's legal.

>>Reads a lot into 17 USC 201,
> 
> Actually, into caselaw.

Not sure what you mean here. It's their interpretation of a specific 
sentence in 17 USC 201 that I find extremely questionable.

-Micah