Quote:
Originally Posted by latchkeyed
Given that you are the original source of both the codebase and the name, I can't believe that someone would find requiring you to change project names a "reasonable way" to prevent misrepresentation of the original material.
|
But you're not.
There are three codebases in question here. Code A is the original code, under bare GPL3. Code B is a derivative work of Code A, under GPL3+requiring modified versions being marked as different, and it may have the same name as Code A. Code C is a derivative work of Code B, and *must* be marked as different from Code B, because the author of Code C does not have any rights to the the code contributed by the author of Code B just because he happens to be the author of Code A, and although the clause can be added in a derivative work, it cannot be removed.
With respect to Code C, Code B is the "original material". Not Code A. Not unless all the additions in Code B are rewritten or removed.
Quote:
|
I guess it all goes back to the idea that other people can make changes to the code license later on. Whether they're adding an exception or choosing to move to a later version of the GPL (assuming your code has the "or later" option), you could be faced with changing your license to accept other people's work. You never need to take their contributions though, and even without 7(c) you probably have trademark claims against their use of the name if they have truly forked the project.
|
You don't have to use their code, no, but if you don't want to be able to use someone else's improvements to your code, just go with BSD/Artistic and give up on copyleft and you'll make everyone's life simpler. And yes, doing "GPL version X or Later" has much the same issue. It means that other people can use your work in all sorts of things, but you generally can't use their improvements. It's not a bad choice for "fire and forget" code that you don't plan to maintain, as it guarantees *some* kind of future copylefting, but is bad for people that actually care about the terms of their license.
Trademark is a completely separate issue. You don't get trademark rights by default, and few Free Software authors go to the trouble and expense of applying for a software trademark for their work. If you did, and then released a project under GPL3 without applying 7c, you might very well end up losing the trademark entirely on the grounds that you didn't defend it.