On Wed, Aug 25, 2004 at 04:40:34PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: > 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.
Notice that one could argue that altough your changes my indeed be licenced under GPL v2 and only that one, if you combine it with the real thing, and make a binary distribution for example, you are then forced to give the same permissions as the original work was under, namely GPL v2 or later. Compare this to the QPL permission to release a patch under any version you well please, as long as you don't do binary distribution. Friendly, Sven Luther
