Python Cannot be Killed

[Alexander Schmolck]

Ben Finney <bignose-hates-spam at and-zip-does-too.com.au> writes:

> On 17 Jun 2003 23:12:18 +0100, Alexander Schmolck wrote:
> > I am not a lawyer, but my reading is that this gives the FSF a fair
> > amount of control under what conditions *MY* GPL'ed code is available
> > -- if they publish a new version, my code is automatically licensed
> > under it -- even if I don't happen to agree with those changes. Wrong?
> 
> Yes, wrong.
> 
> You are recommended to state the distribution terms as "under the terms
> of the GNU General Public License, either version 2 of the license, or,
> at your option, any later version" which has an effect similar to what
> you're saying; i.e. that the code with such distribution terms can be
> re-licensed under a new version of the GPL (but only the ones made by
> the FSF) by downstream distributors, at their option.
> 
> However, this statement is not part of the license itself; it's up to
> you.  There's nothing to stop you stating the terms as "under the terms
> of the GNU General Public License, version 2."  This fixes the
> distribution license and gives no option to change it to anything else.
> 
> Here's what the FSF have to say about the "Version 2 or later"
> recommendation:
> 
>     <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#VersionTwoOrLater>

Thanks for the link. So while this is not mandatory, you are still strongly
encouraged to use the GPL in a way that requires a bit of faith in the
continued well-intent of the FSF.

'as