[SLL] Save Novell!

[Rob Smith]

On 6/4/07, Glenn Stone <technoshaman at liawol.org> wrote:
> That's not strictly true:
>
> From http://www.gnu.org/copyleft.html, Terms and Conditions:
>
> 9.  The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new versions of
>     the General Public License from time to time. Such new versions will be
>     similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in detail to
>     address new problems or concerns.
>
>         Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program
>         specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and "any
>         later version", you have the option of following the terms and conditions
>         either of that version or of any later version published by the Free
>         Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number of
>         this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free
>         Software Foundation.
>
> -- end quote --
>
> A simple *patch* probably can't be relicensed... but a work *containing* a
> patch (and thus a version number bump) is a derivative wwork and thus can be
> relicensed under GPL v.3.  Since most distros (Deb in particular) distribute
> full packages and not just patches, they're quite warranted in v.3'ing their
> works.  Matter of fact, you could simply have the "patch" be "replaced GPL2
> with GPL3"... that would be quite sufficient.  IMNASHO, IANAL, EIEIO.
>
> -- Glenn

Uhh, I think there's a slight misunderstanding of how that reads.
Here's how I think you are reading it:

If the Program
       specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and "any
       later version *of the software*", you have the option of
following the terms and conditions
       either of that version or of any later version published by the Free
       Software Foundation.

I think it's actually ment to be

If the Program
       specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and "any
       later version *of the gpl*", you have the option of following
the terms and conditions
       either of that version or of any later version published by the Free
       Software Foundation.

so then if package X was licenced as
GPL v2 and later

then a patch could bump it to gpl v3 or the like (assuming the other
copyright holders agree to it)

where as if it was just licenced as
GPL v2

you can't just bump it, as the licence is not saying they are
accepting future versions of the gpl.

One thing that really gets projects into trouble is they don't require
patch submitters to give the copyright to the main dev/group, and thus
to relicence a package, it requires everyone to sign off, when some
people are gone for years when the time comes.

~Rob