🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1993Jan9.025025.19137@husc3.harvard.edu> zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) writes:

   Please consider learning to edit the header.

Please consider learning not to use public mailing lists as a way to
attempt to be condescending to people.

   In article <MIB.93Jan8191428@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu>
   mib@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell) writes:

   >Even if a later version of the GPL (say version 3) does the nasty
   >thing you suggest, you can still distribute under the terms of GPL
   >version 2.  "Version 2 of the GPL" is a static, unalterable, legal
   >document.  The later publication of a version 3 does not somehow
   >magically change the wording of version 2.

   This is correct, but you could still restrict the GPL, and follow by
   licensing subsequent releases under the new version thereof, leaving
   the dreaded software hoarders with nought but obsolete "free" software.

It's also important to remember that the FSF is a public charity.  The
laws of Massachusetts restrict it in many ways.  If the FSF tried to
do as you suggest, then we would likely be promptly shut down.

   MIB:
   >Moreover, changing the GPL in such a way would violate the terms of
   >the assignments people have made when donating sofwtare to the FSF.
   >(This is a legal transfer of copyright; merely GPL-ing does not cause
   >such a transfer.)  Those assignments guarantee to the author that the
   >FSF will distribute under terms essentially like those of the GPL.

   The ramifications of the alleged terms of copyright assignments are a
   private matter, which concerns no one but you and the authors of the
   donated software; hence, unlike the GPL, the contracts in question are
   not subject to public scrutiny; consequently you must forgive me for
   not paying too much attention to your claim.

Any significant contribution to GNU software is bound by these
assignments.  The contracts *are* subject to public scrutiny; I can
send you a copy if you are interested in the wording.  (Remember, we
are a public charity; we can't just march on doing whatever we
please.)  Any significant piece of GNU software incorporates such
contributions, and so such a modification of the GPL would be illegal.

	
--
Michael I. Bushnell      |     Watch, for you do not know when the master of 
+1 617 625 4518 (H)     -+-    the house will come, in the evening, or at
+1 617 253 8568 (W)      |     midnight, or at cockcrow, or in the morning, 
mib@gnu.ai.mit.edu       |     lest he come suddenly and find you asleep.