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

[Brian Thomas Sniffen <bts@alum.mit.edu>]

Raul Miller <moth@debian.org> writes:

>> > 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?

Because I received it under GPL version 2 or later.  Following GPL 9,
I have the option of following the terms of version 2.  I elect to do
so.  I make some modifications and distribute them under GPL 2b.  When
I redistribute my code, I must distribute under "this License" -- that
is, the GPL v2.  While I could choose to also distribute my
modifications under a more permissive license, such as "GPL v2 or
later", I elect not to do so.  Instead, I distribute only under GPL
v2.

>> > 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?

No, only that I can choose the licensing for my own code.

> 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.

No, you've shown me the part of the license which allows *me* to
choose GPL v3 for the code the FSF gave me, because they explicitly
allow that.

-Brian

-- 
Brian Sniffen                                       bts@alum.mit.edu