Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> > The FSF could release a GPL version 3 which has completely arbitrary >> > terms. If control of the FSF had passed to someone unscrupulous, these >> > terms might be proprietary. [I'm not saying this is a likely scenario, >> > just a possible one -- I hope this hypothesis seems particularly >> > outrageous.] > > On Wed, Aug 25, 2004 at 09:29:43AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: >> This is where you lose me. The FSF releases their GPL v3, which is >> suspiciously similar to a Microsoft EULA. Now what? The change I >> submitted, which is distributed with GCC, is licensed only under GPL >> v2. > > What's your basis for asserting that, even after GPL v3 becomes available, > the change you submitted is licensed only under GPL v2? > > I'm going to quote section 9 for you: > > 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. > > Do you think this last paragraph wouldn't apply to your changes? > > If so, why?
Because I received it under GPL version 2 or later. Following GPL 9, I have the option of following the terms of version 2. I elect to do so. I make some modifications and distribute them under GPL 2b. When I redistribute my code, I must distribute under "this License" -- that is, the GPL v2. While I could choose to also distribute my modifications under a more permissive license, such as "GPL v2 or later", I elect not to do so. Instead, I distribute only under GPL v2. >> > Anyways, that's something only the FSF can do with gcc licensing -- >> > no one else can. >> >> Well, yes, but it's *their software*. They are the sole copyright >> holder on GNU GCC -- I can distribute a modified version which is not >> GNU GCC, and those modifications can be under, for example, GNU GPL >> v2. And then the FSF can't do anything scary to me. > > Are you claiming that when you make a patch to gcc that you can change > the licensing terms? No, only that I can choose the licensing for my own code. > If not, what has changed to prevent users of your changes from using > GPL v3? > >> > More simply, I'm asserting that the QPL relicense clause is similar in >> > spirit (though not in implementation) to section 9 of the GPL. >> >> I'm not compelled to give the FSF the privilege of changing licenses >> on me, which is the critical difference. > > I've shown you the part of the license which allows the FSF to use GPL v3 > for your hypothetical mods to gcc. I've yet to see you demonstrate how > you can prevent this from happening. No, you've shown me the part of the license which allows *me* to choose GPL v3 for the code the FSF gave me, because they explicitly allow that. -Brian -- Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
