[MPlayer-cvslog] license wars!

[Diego Biurrun]

On Sun, Dec 23, 2007 at 02:13:30PM +0200, Ivan Kalvachev wrote:
> On Dec 22, 2007 11:25 PM, Rich Felker <dalias at aerifal.cx> wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 01:35:57PM +0100, Aurelien Jacobs wrote:
> > > > The LICENSE file is pretty clear about the subject:
> > > >
> > > >   9. The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new
> > > > versions of the General Public License from time to time.  Such new
> > > > versions will be similar in spirit to the present version, but may
> > > > differ in detail to address new problems or concerns.
> > > >
> > > > Each version is given a distinguishing version number.  If the Program
> > > > specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and
> > > > "any later version", you have the option of following the terms and
> > > > conditions either of that version or of any later version published
> > > > by the Free Software Foundation.  If the Program does not specify a
> > > > version number of this License, you may choose any version ever
> > > > published by the Free Software Foundation.
> > >
> > > This indeed is pretty clear.
> > >  - The program does specify a version number (see second line of LICENSE)
> > >  - The program don't specify anywhere "any later version"
> > >
> > > => MPlayer as a whole is under GPLv2 only !
> >
> > As of present this may be correct since some files may still say "v2
> > only". However, your reasoning is utterly idiotic. Obviously the
> > LICENSE distributed with the program will always display one
> > particular version number; this does not negate the clause of the
> > license that says the recipient may choose other versions.
> >
> > Applying a license is not just a matter of putting a file named
> > LICENSE in the repo, especially when multiple authorship is involved.
> > Copyright on sources needs to be documented and the author's licensing
> > choice needs to be made clear, e.g. "This file is licensed under ..."
> >
> > Historically MPlayer had no such notices, and the whole program was
> > just assumed to be under invalid/infringing/nondistributable status
> > (in Arpi's original version :) or generic "GPL" with no attention to
> > version. According to Diego, whom I specifically asked about this, the
> > MPlayer release documentation never specified a version of the GPL,
> > while the website did at one point say "GPL v2". The info on the
> > website was added by Diego (in recent times, as I understand it) and
> > reflected the fact that some code in MPlayer was[/is?] under v2 only,
> > not any decision by the team to license the whole program only under
> > v2 in the future (in which case older versions would still be
> > available under any version of the GPL).
> >
> > Personally I find GPL v3 bloated and distasteful. But I also see no
> > good reason to play these stupid license war games the FSF has become
> > so fond of when the intent is just that the code remain free. My view
> > is that we should always license under the broadest possible copyleft.
> >
> > As for the uncertainty of future versions, not only does the FSF have
> > a mandate to maintain working copyleft in all future GPL versions;
> > they also have numerous contracts to this effect with contributors who
> > have assigned code to the FSF, e.g. in Emacs and other (c)FSF
> > projects. Should the FSF ever be "subverted" or whatever nonsense
> > conspiracy theories people want to propose, they'd have to face
> > lawsuits from all these contributors over breach of contract for the
> > copyright-assignment contracts. They would also likely face litigation
> > from all users of the GPL.
> >
> > As far as I'm concerned, I'll explicitly state here that any and all
> > code I've written for MPlayer may be used under any version of the GPL
> > ever published. Anyone wanting to add such license headers to the
> > files I've written is welcome to do so. It is my hope that MPlayer
> > will maintain a policy of "GPL v2 or later" indefinitely.
> 
> Fully agree.
> 
> Just to put things at rest.
> 
> LICENSE file contains its own version number.
> Copyright file however doesn't specify any version:
> 
> "...You are free to use it under the terms of the GNU General Public License,
> as described in the LICENSE file."
> 
> So it is up to the individual files.

I added the Copyright file (and those words).  Quite obviously I cannot
restrict the individual files to v2 only by this act.

Diego