[Foundation-l] Re: license evolution

[Ray Saintonge]

Robin Shannon wrote:

>2005/5/22, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net>:
>  
>
>>I noticed that clause with some  concern quite some time ago, though I
>>didn't comment on it.  Article 10 of the licence deals with future
>>revisions, and at first glance appears to deal with the point.
>>Nevertheless, even there I am not completely comfortable with it.  The
>>article appears to give people a choice about which version whould
>>apply.  That's fine when you're dealing with the handful of articles
>>that a person might put onto his personal website, but it creates
>>potential complications when many users are involved.  A person who
>>contributes today may not like a GFDL version that appears five years
>>later when he (or his heirs) are no longer reachable.
>>    
>>
> But just because it is avaliable under the next version, doesnt mean
>
>it stops being avaliable under the older one. In other words, if i
>license something under GFDL 1.0, and then in GFDL 2.0 they say
>no-comercial use (which they wont, but that is not the point), it is
>still avaliable under 1.0 so that it will forever be able to be used
>for commerical purposes. In other words, only changes to make the
>information more free would have a real effect.
>
The point is that the clause is like signing a blank cheque.  You have 
no control over the way it will be changed in the future.  If you don't 
opt out of a future change with an explicit statement you will be 
assumed to have implicitly agreed to the change.

Ec