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

[Bill Kendrick]

On Fri, Apr 01, 2005 at 06:46:00PM -0800, Rick Moen wrote:
> No.  Once again:  If you're the author, you are _not a recipient under
> licence_ at all.  Think about it.  Licences are conditions (under either
> bare copyright law or a contract) for recipients.  As author, you're not
> a recipient; you made the thing.

Excuse my hazy brain, and the fact that I haven't read any of the references
in question yet.

What I THINK Micah is saying... or, at least, the concern >I< can think of
having, as a developer of GPL software, is if I create something under
GPL 2 with the "or later" clause, get dozens of contributions by others,
and then GPL 3 comes out and I don't like it, I would imagine that I'd
have to ask all of the other contributors[*] for permission to strike
the "or later" clause in any subsequent releases/updates.

[*] Assuming they didn't assign copyright to me.
    FWIW, with my existing GPL stuff, I just use the GPL as-is, which
    includes the "or later" clause.  Meaning I _am_ up a creek if a
    later version of the GPL is disagreeable.  :^/


Sorry to just jump in like that.  I've been reading the thread,
though not comprehending what everyone says, probably due to the fact
that these cellphones at work are frustratign the HELL out of me today. :)

-bill!