Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> > I can see why you'd think that. However, that's not one of the terms >> > offered by GPL v2. Perhaps there will be a GPL v3 which offers something >> > analogous to "GPL v2 alone" as one of its terms. > > On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 11:32:58AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote: >> Section 9 of the GPLv2 is quite clear: It says *if* the the program >> specifies that any later version may be used, then you may elect to >> use a later version. > > True. > >> It also says that *if* no version is specified, >> you may use any version. > > True. > >> It does not say those are the only choices for software that uses the >> GPL, > > This is true in the sense that the copyright holder might also offer > the software under some other license. > >> so it does not prohibit specifying a particular GPL version to the >> exclusion of others. > > False. Section 6 says:
Er, section 6 isn't the copyleft in the GPL. It's the "public license" part. It only grants rights to *the Program*, which is the original work. Look at the third line below. The copyleft is in GPL 2. > Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the > Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the > original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject > to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further > restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. > > -- > Raul -- Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
