Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > In my opinion the bit that says <<and "any later version",>> refers > to later versions of the program -- in other words, what the license > elsewhere calls works based on the Program.
That's the real misunderstanding. That very clearly refers to any later version of the GPL, not any later version of the program. > Now, users have to distribute the program under the same terms they > recieved it. But those terms include both a requirement that other > people be allowed to distribute under later versions of the GPL, There's no such requirement. > and a prohibition agasinst allowing other people to distribute under > later versions of the GPL. Since the user can't satisfy both of these > requirements, they can't distribute it at all. That's what compatible licenses are for anyway -- if GPLv3 is a GPLv2-compatible license (highly unlikely, I admit) then it would work fine. > Do you see the difference I'm seeing between "GPL v2 only" and "GPL v2 > with a prohibition on later versions"? > > [Aside: I'm guessing that you're thinking that the second use of the word > "version" must mean "version of the license" rather than "version of the > program", and that the use of quotes around the phrase which contains > the second use of the word "version" means that there is some kind of > requirement that the quoted statement appear in statements about the > version of the license for this option to be valid. Is that really what > you are thinking? If so, think I can see why you're making the claims > you've been making.] Ah, you thought of this already. Yes, that's exactly what I think. Now I see a lot of why you've been arguing what you have. The "any later version" is a very clear reference to the suggested application text, as shown in http://www.fsf.org/licenses/info/GPLv2orLater.html -Brian -- Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
