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

[Raul Miller <moth@debian.org>]

> >    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.

Raul Miller <moth@debian.org> writes:
> > Do you think this last paragraph wouldn't apply to your changes?
> >
> > If so, why?

On Wed, Aug 25, 2004 at 04:35:47PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Because I received it under GPL version 2 or later.

You've received gcc under GPL version 2, which explicitly allows you,
as the user to use the terms of GPL version 2 or later versions.

> Following GPL 9, I have the option of following the terms of version 2.

Yes.

> 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.

Sure.

> Instead, I distribute only under GPL v2.

But GPL v2 explicitly allows other users to make this version choice
themselves.  So later users still have the option to use GPL v3, just
like you did.

But it's not the case that all users have the option to *issue* GPL v3.
Only the FSF can do that.  And it just so happens that they're the
copyright holder on gcc.

Which, to get back to the original point, is an example of a free software
license which is assymetrical with regards to the right to publish the
software under alternative licenses.

> > 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.

You can choose to issue it under GPL terms, or you can choose not to
publish it.  If you choose to issue it under GPL terms then other users
have the right to use it under the terms of some later version of the GPL.

In what DFSG way is this different from the situation with the QPL?
With the QPL you also have the choice to issue your code under the terms
of the QPL and you have the choice to not issue it at all.  If you do
issue your code under the terms, Trolltech can release your code under
another license... but how is Trolltech's ability to release your code
under another license significantly different from FSF's ability to
release your code under another license?

> > 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.

But the GPL requires you pass on every right which you receive.

So it's not just you that has the right to choose to use GPL v3.
In particular, the FSF also has that right.

However, it is only the FSF who have the right to issue GPL v3.

-- 
Raul