2.0

Rob Myers robmyers at mac.com
Wed May 26 04:23:39 EDT 2004


On Wednesday, May 26, 2004, at 07:49AM, Peter Prohaska <pitrp at wg78.de> wrote:

>I think that point (2) dangerous.  I personally prefer licenses that
>under no circumstances change their meaning.
>
>At least the open source software folks among us will know the debate
>and notice that this is one of the major differences between GPL and OSL
>i.e.
>
>Be prepared to loose users here.

More users would be lost if problems that emerge in a license couldn't be fixed.

This is not the major issue that some people have with the GPL, the main issue is the sharealike aspect of it. People seem to prefer to give their work to Microsoft for no cost using the BSD-style licenses. Whatever.

The upgrade caluse is vital and is common to most non-BSD licenses, whether sharealike or not. 
The reason why is very simple. If your "OSL" license was broken, would you want it fixed? 
We'll assume yes. How can you fix it? You have to change the wording. We'll assume this change needs identifying for practical reasons. How do you identify it? You change the version number.

You now have a problem. How do you get the fix out? 

You can:

1. Change all your files and notify all your users that they must upgrade. I hope you inserted a clause requiring everyone who downloads your software/content sends you a forwarding address.
2. Have the update happen automatically by the terms of the license.

Changes need to be compatible, but they may be necessary, and when they are they need making effectively.

That said, could Fox buy CC and release a CC 3.0 that made all the work theirs? Or the FSF get bought by MS and have GPL 3.0 as a EULA? You could still use the 2.0 licenses, but is this a possibility even if only in the realm of FUD?

- Rob.



More information about the cc-licenses mailing list