Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Wed, Aug 25, 2004 at 09:29:43AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: >> > 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.] > > Well, in theory not--"such new versions will be similar in spirit to the > present version". That vague limitation isn't particularly reassuring, > of course. > >> 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. > > Earlier, I wrote a reply asking about things like "v2 vs. v2-or-greater > compatibility" and so on; but after thinking about it for a while, and > rereading the GPL, I realized this is a very common mistaken idea: you > *can not* release your work under "GPL v2, not greater". GPL#9 says > "if you release under v2, upgrades are allowed". If you want to release > under v2 without allowing upgrades, you'd have to revoke clause 9--which > would be GPL-incompatible, so you can't do that to your gcc contribution.
We're looking at very different versions of GPL 9. I'm going to go through it a bit at a time: > Each version is given a distinguishing version number. That's just a statement of fact. > If the Program specifies a version number of this License which > applies to it and "any later version"..... Well, my changes don't do that, so that's OK. > If the Program does not specify a version > number of this License, you may choose any version ever published by > the Free Software Foundation. And my changes do specify a version number. So GPL 9 doesn't have anything to say about my changes -- it only covers the version-free and "or any later version" cases. It doesn't say anything about writing "GPL v2". > The practice of writing "GPL v2" in their licenses when they mean to deny > upgrades is wrong--"or greater" is implied by GPL#9. I don't see that implication at all. I see explicit coverage of the non-obvious cases. The coverage of the "or any later version" needs to be explicit to make clear that it's the recipient's choice, not the author's, which version he receives it under. > (Raul said a similar thing, but I thought I'd explain it from the perspective > of one who, until yesterday, held the same belief as you.) -- Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
