Re: GPL v2 only,please

Didier Verna <didier(a)xemacs.org&gt; writes: Yes and no. The vast bulk of software "(C) FSF" has been transferred to them using a copyright assignment. The form this copyright assignments takes is a contract between _two_ parties. The FSF spells out that it will only release the software under terms that don't differentiate between the FSF and the general public, and there are several other guarantees. If the FSF could not release the majority of code (C) FSF under future versions of the GPL without violating their contracts to copyright assigners, that would be quite pointless. Basically, it boils down to whether you'd rather trust the FSF to keep to its promises and its course and spirit, or trust legislation, technology and politics to refrain from coming up with new ways to eventually render the current GPL versions ineffective. I'd rather sign my blank check to the FSF than to a faceless army of politicians, legislators and corporate lawyers. And that's basically the choice it boils down to _unless_ all contributors (or copyright holders) remain permanently available for an unanimous agreement on relicensing if necessitated by events. Only when people are guaranteed to remain accessible and reasonable (which is not too frequent, I am afraid, sometimes for as mundane reasons as death), one can delay signing a check to whenever it becomes necessary. In a way, you sign a blank check whenever you vote in a representative democracy. You can decide who you are addressing it to, but that's basically it. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ XEmacs-Beta mailing list XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org http://calypso.tux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta