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:

> On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 02:19:23PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>> This excerpt is quite clear:
>> 
>> A Program may specify GPL2 and "any later version" - check
>> If the Program just says "GPL", the recipient may use any version - check
>>
>> If the Program says "GPL v2" alone, there's nothing in S9 that leads
>> to later versions being applicable.
>
> I can see why you'd think that.  However, that's not one of the terms
> offered by GPL v2.  Perhaps there will be a GPL v3 which offers something
> analogous to "GPL v2 alone" as one of its terms.

What do you mean that's not one of the terms offered?  If I say
something is available under the terms of the GPL v2, what do you
think that means?  Legally null?  If so, the FSF doesn't agree with
you:

http://www.fsf.org/licenses/info/GPLv2orLater.html

They say that allows distribution under the GPLv2.

-Brian

-- 
Brian Sniffen                                       bts@alum.mit.edu