I suggest that the main weakness of the GPL is the wording "(at your option) any later version". Whether this wording is part of the license or not, is a troubling grey area.
Consider the following scenario: Monopoly Software Co., somehow:
- infiltrates the FSF
- marginalizes its current leadership
- possibly changes the FSF charter
- then, releases GPL version 6, granting MoSoCo full rights to use, modify and sell derivative works, etc
Of course, MoSoCo uses "at [their] option" only this last version of the GPL for all their derivative works, and they make lots of money on the sweat of the open source community, no strings attached.
The crux of the matter resides in the reliance of the license on the benevolence of a variable group of people.
Slashdot Mirror
I suggest that the main weakness of the GPL is the wording "(at your option) any later version". Whether this wording is part of the license or not, is a troubling grey area.
:]m
Consider the following scenario: Monopoly Software Co., somehow:
- infiltrates the FSF
- marginalizes its current leadership
- possibly changes the FSF charter
- then, releases GPL version 6, granting MoSoCo full rights to use, modify and sell derivative works, etc
Of course, MoSoCo uses "at [their] option" only this last version of the GPL for all their derivative works, and they make lots of money on the sweat of the open source community, no strings attached.
The crux of the matter resides in the reliance of the license on the benevolence of a variable group of people.