Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 10:45:28PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: >> Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >> > On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 09:32:51PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: >> >> No, because it specifically says that it's at *my* option -- the >> >> recipients -- both in the grant "GPL v2 or, at your option, any later >> >> version" and in GPL 9. >> > >> > The question isn't what permissions you can use; it's which permissions >> > *you must grant* to others. That is, is not granting permission to use >> > newer versions of the GPL--which is, essentially, a restriction--a >> > violation >> > of GPL #6? >> >> No, it's not essentially a restriction -- it's a failure to grant a >> permission, which is different. GPL 2 says only that I must > > The "All rights reserved" license (no permissions) fails to grant > permission to distribute modified works. It's equivalent to a > restriction prohibiting them--just sides of a coin.
That's relative to the default ARR license. I'm talking relative to the license I had and used, which at my option can be GPL v2 alone. The "or any later..." part never hits me. -Brian -- Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
