[Insight-users] GPL License versions : Errata

[Luis Ibanez]

Hi Gunnar,

Thanks for you correction.

You are right, after looking back at the gnu.org web site

              http://www.gnu.org/licenses/

I verified that the GPL license doesn't have a version 2.2,
and that indeed the version 2 have not been changed since 1991:


         http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html

as well as the fact that Version 3 is still no the works:

            https://www.fsf.org/news/gpl3.html


My misunderstanding came from reading too fast the following
interview to Eric Raymond:

http://www.onlamp.com/pub/a/onlamp/2005/06/30/esr_interview.html

In this interview there are comments about the fact that once
you received software under a GPL license, your derivative work
must be distributed under a GPL license or a following version
of it.  As a colloquial example he cites V2.2, but that was just
figuratively....   So, you are right, I should have checked that
closer before spreading misinformation on the Web.

My apologies for that  :-/


----

On more background

Eric Raymond is the founder of the OpenSource Initiative,

                    www.opensource.org

That host the collection of licenses that can be qualified as
"Open Source" compatible.

In his keynote speech to the International Forum of Free Software

           http://fisl.softwarelivre.org/6.0/


He described his views of why the GPL license is not necessary
anymore and it may actually slow down the adoption of open source
practices by a larger community.  I personally adhere to his views
on this topic, but I'm sure there are many members of the open
source community that will disagree.

There is no question that the GPL license and the concept of
copyleft are a the ones that made possible the flourishing of the
open source movement. However, now that large companies such as
IBM, SGI, SUN, Dell, and most Tax responsible government support
the concept of open source, other licensing needs come into place.


For more elements on the ongoing discussion of Licensing issues
and Open Source Software, please look at the NAMIC page:


http://www.na-mic.org/Wiki/index.php/NAMIC_Wiki:Community_Portal

in particular to:

http://www.na-mic.org/Wiki/index.php/NAMIC_Wiki:Community_Licensing



Just for the record, the license that we are adopting for the
Insight Journal is the

          "Creative Commons Attribution License, Version 2.5"

            http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/




This is the same license adopted by the Public Library of Science
(PLoS) and by BiomedCentral.





    Thanks again for your correction,



       Regards,



          Luis



-----------------------
Gunnar Farnebäck wrote:

> Hi Luis,
> 
> I suppose you have your own reasons to propagate against the GPL, but
> this looks like disinformation:
> 
> 
>>   Note also that saying "GPL" is not enough anymore,
>>   since the GPL license, as many other licenses, have
>>   versions. You must be aware that GPL Version 3.0
>>   has different terms than GPL Version 2.2.
> 
> 
> There has never been a GPL Version 2.2 and GPL Version 3 is still in
> the forthcoming state. See for example
> http://www.fsf.org/news/gpl3.html,
> 
>   "The GNU General Public License (``the GPL'') has remained unmodified,
>   at version level 2, since 1991."
> 
> /Gunnar Farnebäck
> 
>