Re: GPL "or any greater version"
Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org> 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 isn't what permissions you can use; it's which permissions
> *you must grant* to others. That is, is not granting permission to use
> newer versions of the GPL--which is, essentially, a restriction--a violation
> of GPL #6?
No, it's not essentially a restriction -- it's a failure to grant a
permission, which is different. GPL 2 says only that I must
distribute under "this License," which is v2 alone. GPL 6
distinguishes between "the Program" and "a work based on the Program",
so that's also OK -- it engages on distribution of either, but grants
rights only to the Program itself, which means the original version.
If GPL 6 imposed a copyleft on modifications, then GPL 2b wouldn't be
there, right?
I can see GPL 9 and 6 between them giving someone who receives a
modified work from me a "or any later version" license to the original
program -- but not on the modifications, which are made under GPL 2b.
> 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 requirement of it, such that it becomes "locked in" by GPL#6.
The "at your option" text really clinches it for me -- since it's my
option, I can choose to *accept* it under v2 alone, and then when I
distribute under GPLv2 alone, I'm distributing only under the
privileges I have.
Raul seems to be arguing that despite the "at your option" text, it's
not the recipient who has the option, but the initial author gets to
relicense the work of others, to which he owns no copyright. I don't
see anything in the GPL to indicate that.
> The answer isn't clear, which is why I punted to the FSF for their view.
> The answer I received was from a "licensing volunteer". I assumed that
> what they'd say is canonical--considering they're the ones answering
> licensing@gnu.org--but the feeling I received after the last exchange
> was that "official" word on this has to wait for a reply from higher
> up. I assume that this may be an issue that hasn't been asked very
> often, and the person replying isn't really sure.
I really appreciate your doing so. They should be able to issue a
real answer.
-Brian
--
Brian Sniffen bts@alum.mit.edu
Reply to: