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

[Micah Cowan]

Rick Moen wrote:
> Quoting Bill Kendrick (nbs at sonic.net):
> 
> 
>>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.

Yup, that's what I'm saying.

> 1.  Even aside from the broad rights one would have as the developer of
> a collective work, you could just drop the "or later" clause as to your
> portion of the code.

But only to your own.

> 2.  But as the Licensing HOWTO points out, the common assumption that
> such a developer must secure everyone else's permission as a matter of
> law (as opposed to courtesy and tradition) is incorrect.

Again, I feel the HOWTO (rather, DRAFT HOWTO) is wrong. The text of the 
actual law they specifically cite is rather explicit that you receive 
only rights over your own contribution to the work, in the absense of 
any explicit assignments. I'm not sure how they read whatever they read 
into it, and if it's case law, then I'd like to see some references to 
decisions to that effect.

Obviously, she's a lawyer, and I'm not: but I would like a little more 
backup than "because I say so."

-Micah