Re: NEW ocaml licence proposal by upstream, will be part of the 3.08.1 release going into sarge.

[Raul Miller <moth@debian.org>]

> > The FSF could release a GPL version 3 which has completely arbitrary
> > terms.  If control of the FSF had passed to someone unscrupulous, these
> > terms might be proprietary.  [I'm not saying this is a likely scenario,
> > just a possible one -- I hope this hypothesis seems particularly
> > outrageous.]

On Wed, Aug 25, 2004 at 09:29:43AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> This is where you lose me.  The FSF releases their GPL v3, which is
> suspiciously similar to a Microsoft EULA.  Now what?  The change I
> submitted, which is distributed with GCC, is licensed only under GPL
> v2.

What's your basis for asserting that, even after GPL v3 becomes available,
the change you submitted is licensed only under GPL v2?

I'm going to quote section 9 for you:

   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.

   Each version is given a distinguishing version number. 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. If the Program does not specify
   a version number of this License, you may choose any version ever
   published by the Free Software Foundation.

Do you think this last paragraph wouldn't apply to your changes?

If so, why?

> > Anyways, that's something only the FSF can do with gcc licensing --
> > no one else can.
> 
> Well, yes, but it's *their software*.  They are the sole copyright
> holder on GNU GCC -- I can distribute a modified version which is not
> GNU GCC, and those modifications can be under, for example, GNU GPL
> v2.  And then the FSF can't do anything scary to me.

Are you claiming that when you make a patch to gcc that you can change
the licensing terms?

If not, what has changed to prevent users of your changes from using
GPL v3?

> > More simply, I'm asserting that the QPL relicense clause is similar in
> > spirit (though not in implementation) to section 9 of the GPL.
> 
> I'm not compelled to give the FSF the privilege of changing licenses
> on me, which is the critical difference.

I've shown you the part of the license which allows the FSF to use GPL v3
for your hypothetical mods to gcc.  I've yet to see you demonstrate how
you can prevent this from happening.

-- 
Raul