> > 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.
On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 02:37:47PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote: > I omit your "expansions" of this because I think they are somewhere > between exercises in silliness and exercises in perversity. In other words: you disagree, but don't want to express any specific disagreement. > There are three obvious remarks to make: > > First, the GPL does not use "version" anywhere in the license text to > refer to the Program, only to the GPL itself. This is the point in dispute. > The only place that it mentions version is "Gnomovision version 69" > in the explanation of how to use the GPL to protect your program, > which is not part of the license itself. I agree that the word "version" is used to refer to an instance of the program, here. > Second, your proposed reading of "any later version published by the > Free Software Foundation" has a big problem for the large fraction of > GPLed software that is *not* published by the FSF. That was an exact quote, not a "proposed reading". See also http://www.fsf.org/licenses/info/GPLv2orLater.html > Finally, the example of how to use that phrase -- and how it is > generally used in copyright notices -- is this: > > This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify > it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by > the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or > (at your option) any later version. This is a rephrasing, not an attempt to preserve grammatical structure with illustrative concrete nouns. I disagree with this rephrasing in part because the use of concrete nouns in the place of abstract nouns shows a different meaning for the grammar used in the license. I also disagree because the meaning you're suggesting conflicts with the structure of the license as a whole. [It would create a number of internal conflicts in interpretation of the GPL, in a variety of situations.] > Your reading of GPLv2 section 9 is totally unsupported. If that's the case you should have no problem providing specific objections to my examples which used concrete nouns and the same grammatical structures. -- Raul
