From: Austin Ziegler <austin@...>
Date: 2003-07-11T23:56:57+09:00
Subject: Re: My brief and torrid affair with Ruby.

On Fri, 11 Jul 2003 14:49:56 +0900, Jason Creighton wrote:
>�Austin Ziegler <austin@halostatue.ca>�wrote:
>>Note that GPL2 says nothing about remote access (e.g., GPLed 
>>programs that are accessed via the web or via SOAP or some other 
>>mechanism); GPL3 is likely to say something about this, although it 
>>will force me to immediately change any software that I own to 
>>"GPL2", not "GPL2 or later". If the GPL3 is changed the way that 
>>the Affero licence has been changed, then it truly is viral and 
>>anticommercial.
>�Hmmmm....
>�
>�<quoting from GPL2>
>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 [emphasis mine] 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>
>�
>�So couldn't you basically ignore GPL3?

*I* could. However, remember that the licence on my work doesn't apply to me -- I'm the copyright holder. The licence applies to those whom I give it to. If I have (unlikely) chosen to GPL something, I don't want to give anyone else the power to say "you're exposing this software over a network; I therefore have a right to the source code." That's what the Affero PL does and what a proposed GPL3 does. It changes the GPL from primarily a programmer's licence to a use licence as well.

-austin
--
austin ziegler    * austin@halostatue.ca * Toronto, ON, Canada
software designer * pragmatic programmer * 2003.07.11
                                         * 10:53:53