Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 24th Mar 2009 18:02 UTC, submitted by google_ninja
Permalink for comment 354831
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/25/13 0:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 23:59 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 22:33 UTC
Linked by Howard Fosdick on 05/24/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 14:44 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 23:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:01 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 22:23 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-11-18
Did you actually read his comment?
The FSF advises to use the following wording:
"This program is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version."
If you use it as-is, and a new version of the GPL is written, users have the option to use the newer GPL. Suppose if the FSF was hypothetically taken over by Steve Ballmer's evil twin, and rewrites the GPLv4 to give a blanket license to the FSF there is nothing to stop them. Of course, such a scenario is not realistic in the short term. I think the anti-patent licensing terms can be more of a problem in the short term. What happens if a really FLOSS-friendly company (say Red Hat) is sued over a patent, and they can not succesfully defend themselves. Then they would need some patent licensing deal, effectively terminating their right to distributing that particular software if it is licensed under the GPLv3.
I hate patents as much as the next guy, but it is not an unfeasable scenario.