> > http://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html
> Yuck.
If I might reinterpret your comments a tad more abstractly, I take it
you're saying that the document exceeded the mandate of its title,
since it discusses free software license issues in general; and that
it has insufficient global structu
* 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, wh
Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Aug 31, 2004 at 12:15:19PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>> > > Once you've distributed a change to gcc, the copyright holder is free
>> > > to redistribute that change under any future version of the GPL, and
>> > > there's nothing you can d
On Tue, Aug 31, 2004 at 12:15:19PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> > > Once you've distributed a change to gcc, the copyright holder is free
> > > to redistribute that change under any future version of the GPL, and
> > > there's nothing you can do to prevent that. [Your distribution can
> >
Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Aug 30, 2004 at 07:42:41PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>> > The original licensor (copyright holder) can govern the distribution terms
>> > of derived works. This is a right granted by copyright law.
>>
>> No, he can't. He can *restrict
On Mon, Aug 30, 2004 at 07:42:41PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> > The original licensor (copyright holder) can govern the distribution terms
> > of derived works. This is a right granted by copyright law.
>
> No, he can't. He can *restrict* the distribution terms of derived
> works, but
Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 09:32:51PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>> > Once you've distributed a change to gcc, the copyright holder is free
>> > to redistribute that change under any future version of the GPL, and
>> > there's nothing you can do to p
On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 09:32:51PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> > Once you've distributed a change to gcc, the copyright holder is free
> > to redistribute that change under any future version of the GPL, and
> > there's nothing you can do to prevent that. [Your distribution can
> > be "on
On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 03:50:13PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> More fundamentally, my argument has been that "GPL v2 only" means only
> under the terms of GPL v2, which includes the later version option.
That option is only available if the copyright holder has made it available
in the license gra
On Sat, Aug 28, 2004 at 06:18:50AM -0600, Barak Pearlmutter wrote:
> In reaction to this thread I have added an item to address this
> question to
>
> http://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html
>
> which I believe summarizes the consensus here, as well as the
> expressed opinion and intent of t
In reaction to this thread I have added an item to address this
question to
http://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html
which I believe summarizes the consensus here, as well as the
expressed opinion and intent of the FSF regarding the "or later"
clause.
--
Barak A. Pearlmutter <[EMAIL PROTECTED
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> If the Program specifies {a version number of this License which
>> applies to it} and {"any later version"} ...
> That looks plausible grammatically, but still doesn't make much sense
> legally [we're waiting for clarification from the FSF on an aspe
On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 03:22:47PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> > 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 or
On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 03:22:47PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> 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 d
> > > There are ten instances of the word "version" in that section. Only
> > > one can possibly be read as "version of the Program." That is the one
> > > inside the double quotes; but actual practice does not support that
> > > reading.
> > I'm not sure what you mean by "actual practice". Do
Raul Miller writes:
> >9. The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new
> >versions of the General Public License from time to time. Such new
> >versions will be similar in spirit to the present version, but may
> >differ in detail to address new problems or concerns
On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 03:26:41PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Rather than continuing to assume that I'm an idiot, please try to
> imagine reasonable things I might mean. You were talking about how
> "portions copyright foo"-style notices didn't work; I provided a
> reference to a GPL'd p
>
> >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 <[EM
> > 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.
> Raul Miller writes:
> > In other words: you disagree, but don't want to express any speci
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > "Email me to find out copyright terms" is not an appropriate copyright
>> > notice. What happens in copyright terms if the email bounces, for
>> > example?
>
>> > "Read the change log to figure out what terms apply where" is not an
>> > appropriate cop
> >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 <[EMA
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>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
Raul Miller writes:
> > >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 Fou
> > "Email me to find out copyright terms" is not an appropriate copyright
> > notice. What happens in copyright terms if the email bounces, for
> > example?
> > "Read the change log to figure out what terms apply where" is not an
> > appropriate copyright notice, either. Changelogs are inadequa
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > In my opinion the bit that says <> refers
>> > to later versions of the program -- in other words, what the license
>> > elsewhere calls works based on the Program.
>
> On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 12:53:58PM -0400,
> >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, 200
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > What happens to the notices which claim:
>> >
>> > 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 versi
Raul Miller writes:
> > Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > In my opinion the bit that says <> refers
> > > to later versions of the program -- in other words, what the license
> > > elsewhere calls works based on the Program.
>
> On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 12:53:58PM -0400, Brian Thomas S
> > What happens to the notices which claim:
> >
> > 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, or (at your option)
> > any later ve
> Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > In my opinion the bit that says <> refers
> > to later versions of the program -- in other words, what the license
> > elsewhere calls works based on the Program.
On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 12:53:58PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> That's the real m
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In my opinion the bit that says <> 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
> > However, this doesn't mean that a copyright holder who distributes the GPL
> > (version 2) with a prohibition on people distributing any other version
> > has granted other people the right to distribute at all.
On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 10:16:54AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Whoah. So
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > How are you releasing gcc with those statements intact and yet invalid?
>
> On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 10:46:20AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>> You always have the legal obligation to maintain accurate copyright
>> notices. For example, if I made
> > How are you releasing gcc with those statements intact and yet invalid?
On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 10:46:20AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> You always have the legal obligation to maintain accurate copyright
> notices. For example, if I made changes to gcc, I might distribute
> the result
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> >> Section 9 simply does not give the right to choose any version of the
>> >> GPL other than what is specified by the copyright holder.
>
> Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > [Which means what, in the context of gcc?]
>
> On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 a
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > The fact that it doesn't provide terms for any other cases, and another
>> > part of the license says "You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or
>> > distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License".
>
> On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 06:
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > But, frankly, the point about what the oopyright holder can do doesn't
>> > really matter because there are significant programs (such as gcc)
>> > where the copyright holder has specified "or any later version".
>> >
>> > And, that's what you have call
> >> Section 9 simply does not give the right to choose any version of the
> >> GPL other than what is specified by the copyright holder.
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > [Which means what, in the context of gcc?]
On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 09:00:00AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 02:42:25PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
>> > > What rights from the GPL are being restricted by using a specific
>> > > version of it?
>
>> Raul Miller writes:
>> > The right to use other versions of the GPL.
>
> On Thu, Aug 26, 2
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* opt
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 "
On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 10:44:46PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> If someone at the FSF does claim officially that the first is possible,
> could you also ask how this is supposed to be done?
I intend to, though I don't want to throw too many questions at them
or get too far ahead of the dialog, for
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
On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 09:46:56PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> It seems there are two rough interpretations: that "v2 or later" is dual-
> licensing (or "dual, triple, etc-licensing"), and GPL#9 merely explains
> that, affirms it and recommends it; or that GPL#9 makes an explicit
> licensing requ
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 perm
> > But, frankly, the point about what the oopyright holder can do doesn't
> > really matter because there are significant programs (such as gcc)
> > where the copyright holder has specified "or any later version".
> >
> > And, that's what you have called "compulsions of asymmetric privileges".
On
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > I disagree -- section 9 gives you the option of replacing GPL v2 with
>> > later versions.
>
> On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 08:42:50PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>> Only in two very specific circumstances: if you received the work with
>> "or any lat
> > The fact that it doesn't provide terms for any other cases, and another
> > part of the license says "You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or
> > distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License".
On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 06:10:46PM -0700, Adam McKenna wrote:
> Are you sa
On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 09:06:06PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 08:42:50PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> > Only in two very specific circumstances: if you received the work with
> > "or any later version," or if no version number was specified at all.
> >
> > What mak
> > I disagree -- section 9 gives you the option of replacing GPL v2 with
> > later versions.
On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 08:42:50PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Only in two very specific circumstances: if you received the work with
> "or any later version," or if no version number was specifi
On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 08:40:22PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Raul, nobody has claimed that the privileges which are available only
> to copyright holders make software non-free. I and others have
> claimed that compulsions of asymmetric privileges are non-free. The
> compulsions are wh
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 10:08:30PM +0100, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
>> Have you considered the consequences of your weird legal theory?
>>
>> Presumably the Linux kernel would be undistributable because it
>> contains both "GPL 2" and "GPL >=2" code.
>
Raul, nobody has claimed that the privileges which are available only
to copyright holders make software non-free. I and others have
claimed that compulsions of asymmetric privileges are non-free. The
compulsions are what make that non-free -- an existing situation of
asymmetry isn't necessarily
> Raul Miller wrote [in reply to Michael Poole]:
> > You seem to be claiming that the GPL implicitly allows the constraint
> > "no future versions of the GPL may be used" as if that constraint were
> > written into the license (see section 8 for an explicit example of this
> > kind of language).
O
Raul Miller wrote [in reply to Michael Poole]:
You seem to be claiming that the GPL implicitly allows the constraint
"no future versions of the GPL may be used" as if that constraint were
written into the license (see section 8 for an explicit example of this
kind of language).
That is not a co
On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 10:08:30PM +0100, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
> Have you considered the consequences of your weird legal theory?
>
> Presumably the Linux kernel would be undistributable because it
> contains both "GPL 2" and "GPL >=2" code.
Not if "GPL 2" indicates that GPL v2 applies and
On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 05:58:40PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> I disagree that there are only two options. Section 9 provides two
> options, but does not expressly prohibit options of the form "This
> code is distributed under the General Public License, version 2."
I agree.
> Do you believe
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > What rights from the GPL are being restricted by using a specific
> > version of it?
>
> The right to use other versions of the GPL.
Have you considered the consequences of your weird legal theory?
Presumably the Linux kernel would be undistributable because
Raul Miller writes:
> > > On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 02:42:25PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> > > > What rights from the GPL are being restricted by using a specific
> > > > version of it?
>
> > Raul Miller writes:
> > > The right to use other versions of the GPL.
>
> On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 03:35:
On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 04:58:52PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> > > On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 02:42:25PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> > > > What rights from the GPL are being restricted by using a specific
> > > > version of it?
>
> > Raul Miller writes:
> > > The right to use other versions of the
> > On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 02:42:25PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> > > What rights from the GPL are being restricted by using a specific
> > > version of it?
> Raul Miller writes:
> > The right to use other versions of the GPL.
On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 03:35:34PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> Pl
Raul Miller writes:
> On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 02:42:25PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> > What rights from the GPL are being restricted by using a specific
> > version of it?
>
> The right to use other versions of the GPL.
Please explain where that right comes from by citing unconditional
parts o
On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 02:42:25PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> What rights from the GPL are being restricted by using a specific
> version of it?
The right to use other versions of the GPL.
--
Raul
63 matches
Mail list logo
