Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 09:26:37AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: >> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >> > 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. >> >> I don't see any text in the GPL to support that. The copyleft in the >> GPLv2 is in 2b, which says "this License" -- a phrase used often in >> the document, and clearly referring to GPLv2 and not any other >> license. >> >> That's distinct from GPL 6, which extends the original license to the >> public, and forbids further restrictions on the rights to "the >> Program" -- that is, the original work, not modifications to it >> discussed in GPL 2. >> >> So if I make a change to the Program and distribute my modified >> program, combined with the real thing as a binary, as you say, then I >> must distribute under the terms of "this License" -- GPL v2. That's >> the only license I received it under. Though the author may have >> offered it to me under a variety of licenses, including the BSD or GPL >> v3 licenses, I did not accept those and don't have to pay attention to >> them -- that's because they're all license grants, not contracts to >> which I have agreed. They are disjunctive in combination, not >> conjunctive. > > Interesting point. Still it would cause problem to upstream to integrate your > patch, because he cannot easily merge a GPL 2 only patch into a GPL 2 or later > original work, since it would obviously force him to drop the "or later" part > of the original work in the merged work.
Well, sort of. *His* part is still available under as liberal a license as he likes. *My* part is under exactly the license I like. If he had offered his under "GPL or BSD, your choice!" and I submitted changes, he would only be able to use those under the GPL. "GPL v2 or v3, your choice!" is no different. GPL 9 is there so that I *can* release mine under "GPL v2 or later" and he can then integrate it into his, because there's explicit definition of what this means and how it works with the rest of the GPL. It's certainly very different, now that we've looked at it closely, from the QPL 3b insistence that modifiers provide more permissive licenses to the initial developer -- the GPL doesn't require any license to the initial developer unless he's offered a copy, and then only requires its own exact terms. -Brian -- Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
