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:

>> >    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.

No, it doesn't.  GPL v2 section 9 only allows that if the program is
available under GPL v2 "or any later version" -- and my modifications
aren't licensed that way.  They are only available under GPL v2.

> 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.

No, that's a grant under GPL v2 and an invitation to license in a
different way.  Of course the copyright holder can always grant
multiple licenses; that's part of copyright law, not a non-freeness in
a license.  The FSF just invites others to grant the FSF the ability to
issue new licenses for those others' programs.  I do not grant them
that ability.

Similarly, Debian accepts lots of software from the FSF under GPL v2
and distributes under that license.

>> > 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.

No, they don't.  If I choose to issue it under the terms of GPL v2,
what prevents me from doing so?  The GPL itself doesn't, neither in
section 2b nor in section 9 nor in those taken together.

> 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

No, I don't have that choice.  If I release my code at all, I must
grant a license to the initial developer under the terms *mentioned*
in but not *used* in QPL 3b, which are not the same terms that I
receive under 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?

The FSF doesn't have that ability unless I choose to grant it to them
-- they only have the privilege any sole copyright holder does to
license his work as he pleases.

>> > 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.

No, it requires me to pass on the terms of "this license," which is
the GPL v2.

> 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

-- 
Brian Sniffen                                       bts@alum.mit.edu