> Raul Miller wrote [in reply to Michael Poole]: > > You seem to be claiming that the GPL implicitly allows the constraint > > "no future versions of the GPL may be used" as if that constraint were > > written into the license (see section 8 for an explicit example of this > > kind of language).
On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 12:03:09AM +0100, Marco Franzen wrote: > That is not a constraint on the licence, it *is* the licence. This would be the case if the license did not include section 9. > The licence is just what is detailed in a particular version of the > licence text. Different versions are different licences. > > Since these licences all have the same name, a licensor would normally > have to specify the version in addition to the name in order to make > a meaningful grant (or at least there might be some doubt). Exactly. There's a distinction between the grant of license and the possibility to upgrade to other licenses. -- Raul
