* Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [040901 23:15]: > If the original copyright holder has granted you the right to modify > and distribute under "any later version" of the GPL, and you fail to give the > recipients of your deriviate work the same right, then you violate the > spirit of the GPL, whose preamble states that "if you distribute copies of > such a program, whether gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients > all the rights that you have.."
So why use GPL at all, when GPL is against the spirit of the GPL and Public Domain is the thing to go? </sarkasm> > I would also imagine it would be within the original author's rights to > require that any derivative works be distributed with the "or any later > version" clause. Well, he might have a right, but then his work would no longer be distributeable under GPL, as he adds an additional restriction. He allowed it to be distributeable under GPLv2 or further licences that may exist in the future. He may also allow under some BSD/MIT-like license and some other licences in additional terms not clarified within GPL. Telling "You are allowed to use this under GPLv2 or [blub], if you allow under GPLv2 *and* [blub]" is contradictionary both when you insert BSD or GPLv3 for [blub]. Hochachtungsvoll, Bernhard R. Link
