Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> > 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. > > Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> > Do you think this last paragraph wouldn't apply to your changes? >> > >> > If so, why? > > On Wed, Aug 25, 2004 at 04:35:47PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: >> Because I received it under GPL version 2 or later. > > You've received gcc under GPL version 2, which explicitly allows you, > as the user to use the terms of GPL version 2 or later versions. > >> Following GPL 9, I have the option of following the terms of version 2. > > Yes. > >> 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. > > Sure. > >> Instead, I distribute only under GPL v2. > > But GPL v2 explicitly allows other users to make this version choice > themselves. So later users still have the option to use GPL v3, just > like you did.
No, it doesn't. GPL v2 section 9 only allows that if the program is available under GPL v2 "or any later version" -- and my modifications aren't licensed that way. They are only available under GPL v2. > But it's not the case that all users have the option to *issue* GPL v3. > Only the FSF can do that. And it just so happens that they're the > copyright holder on gcc. > > Which, to get back to the original point, is an example of a free software > license which is assymetrical with regards to the right to publish the > software under alternative licenses. No, that's a grant under GPL v2 and an invitation to license in a different way. Of course the copyright holder can always grant multiple licenses; that's part of copyright law, not a non-freeness in a license. The FSF just invites others to grant the FSF the ability to issue new licenses for those others' programs. I do not grant them that ability. Similarly, Debian accepts lots of software from the FSF under GPL v2 and distributes under that license. >> > 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. > > You can choose to issue it under GPL terms, or you can choose not to > publish it. If you choose to issue it under GPL terms then other users > have the right to use it under the terms of some later version of the GPL. No, they don't. If I choose to issue it under the terms of GPL v2, what prevents me from doing so? The GPL itself doesn't, neither in section 2b nor in section 9 nor in those taken together. > In what DFSG way is this different from the situation with the QPL? > With the QPL you also have the choice to issue your code under the terms > of the QPL No, I don't have that choice. If I release my code at all, I must grant a license to the initial developer under the terms *mentioned* in but not *used* in QPL 3b, which are not the same terms that I receive under the QPL. > and you have the choice to not issue it at all. If you do > issue your code under the terms, Trolltech can release your code under > another license... but how is Trolltech's ability to release your code > under another license significantly different from FSF's ability to > release your code under another license? The FSF doesn't have that ability unless I choose to grant it to them -- they only have the privilege any sole copyright holder does to license his work as he pleases. >> > 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. > > But the GPL requires you pass on every right which you receive. No, it requires me to pass on the terms of "this license," which is the GPL v2. > So it's not just you that has the right to choose to use GPL v3. > In particular, the FSF also has that right. > > However, it is only the FSF who have the right to issue GPL v3. > > -- > Raul -- Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
