davidsen@sixhub.UUCP (Wm E. Davidsen Jr) (10/14/90)
This question came up in comp.unix.shells, but I think it is of more
general interest.
There is talk of a change to the GPL to require only making the source
of the FSF stuff available. If true, and it's only rumor as far as I
know, then which GPL applies to programs which say that they are
copyright under the conditions of the GPL? Note that there is no
confusion if a GPL was distributed with the program, that is the
operative license. But after talking to a lawyer(*), I think there is
some question as to which GPL applies, and that in general it is the one
in force when the software was released.
For this reason, if there *is* a change to the GPL, it would be
desirable to include a date, and for programs to mention the date in the
copyright notice. This would make it much easier to identify problem.
(*) I don't just consult lawyers at the drop of a rumor, I was having a
beer with one, and his specialty is patent, rather than copyright, law.
No one should make any decisions based on this, other than FSF, if they
are really changing their policy and want to help their software spread
by clarifying the conditions of use.
--
bill davidsen - davidsen@sixhub.uucp (uunet!crdgw1!sixhub!davidsen)
sysop *IX BBS and Public Access UNIX
moderator of comp.binaries.ibm.pc and 80386 mailing list
"Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -megumby@Cygnus.COM (David Vinayak Wallace) (10/14/90)
It's not a change to the GNU GPL, it's a different license: a library license. It's existance won't affect existing programs like, say, GNU Emacs.