> > 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.
> Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Let's take gcc-3.3.3 prerelease 2 as the concrete noun for "the
> > Program" and "GPL version 2" as the concrete noun for "this License".
> > Substituting, yields:
On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 02:52:34PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> How about: if gcc-3.3.3pre2 specifies (version 2 of this Licence
> which applies to gcc-3.3.3pre2) and specifies ("any later version")...
> which is the natural English reading, when you haven't done the expansions.
That would be fine if the original text read:
If the Program specifies a version number of this License which
applies to it and specifies "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.
But that's not what it says.
> > That application text works just fine with my interpretation.
>
> It's clear even in the URL that the "or later" refers to the version
> of the GPL, not the software licensed under it.
I agree that in http://www.fsf.org/licenses/info/GPLv2orLater.html the
word "version" is used to refer to GPL version.
> The explanatory text makes it clear that it "allows distribution under
> version 2 of the GNU GPL, or any version that the Free Software
> Foundation later releases." -- that is, that "version" means version
> of the GNU GPL as published by the FSF, not version of some software.
That's what it means in some specific phrases.
It is not generally the case that the word "version" does not apply
to software.
> The license text itself very clearly says the same thing. There is no
> occurrence of "version" on that page which could refer to anything
> other than a version of the GPL.
Except in the included example which shows how to apply the terms.
Which, oddly enough, is where section 9 is significant.
But there's a bigger problem: you're advocating that the GPL was designed
to allow a developer to impose a restriction on subsequent users which
[a] is not expressed explicitly in the GPL, and [b] was not imposed by
the original developer. This conflicts with the expressed design intent
of the GPL (see the preamble). This also conflicts with how the GPL
deals with another case of an optional restriction (see section 8).
You have one point in your favor -- the frequent use of the word "version"
in another context. Against that is the structure of the sentence in
question, the structure of the GPL, and the expressed design intent for
the GPL.
Like I said before: I might be wrong, but that would be up to a judge
to decide.
--
Raul
