On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 02:19:23PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote: > Raul Miller writes: > >On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 09:59:30AM +0200, Bernhard R. Link wrote: > >> Which is GPL v2, nothing else. > > > >GPL v2 includes section 9. > > > >The terms in section 9 do not offer distributors the option > >of avoiding future versions of the GPL. > > > >So either: > > > >[a] You are ignorant of the terms of the license, and "nothing > >else" has no meaning, or > > > >[b] You are trying to distribute under terms more restrictive > >than that of GPL v2. > > > >Which is it? > > Erm... > > --- > > 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. > > --- > > This excerpt is quite clear: > > A Program may specify GPL2 and "any later version" - check > If the Program just says "GPL", the recipient may use any version - check > > If the Program says "GPL v2" alone, there's nothing in S9 that leads > to later versions being applicable.
The problem arrive if you release a patch that sayd GPL v2 alone, against a program which is GPL v2 and later. Well, this is ok as long as you don't produce a binary distribution, but once you do, i believe that the term of the more permisive of the two must apply, right ? Since you are not allowed to drop the permissions you got with the original program. Friendly, Sven Luther
