Re: GPL "or any greater version"
Adam McKenna <adam@flounder.net> writes:
> On Mon, Aug 30, 2004 at 07:42:41PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>> > The original licensor (copyright holder) can govern the distribution terms
>> > of derived works. This is a right granted by copyright law.
>>
>> No, he can't. He can *restrict* the distribution terms of derived
>> works, but he doesn't have full rights to them. The person who
>> prepared the derived work also has copyright on it.
>>
>> He certainly can't unilaterally grant a license to work to which he
>> doesn't own exclusive rights.
>
> No, but he can prevent the author of the derivative work from distributing it
> under terms that he finds unacceptable.
Yes, that's certainly true. But since the original context to which
you replied discussed the initial author granting a license to a work,
that's not relevant. Here's the original, Raul and then me:
> > Once you've distributed a change to gcc, the copyright holder is free
> > to redistribute that change under any future version of the GPL, and
> > there's nothing you can do to prevent that. [Your distribution can
> > be "only under the terms of GPLv2", but each recipient "automatically
> > receives a license from the original licensor" and "You may not impose
> > any further restrictions".]
>
> He receives a license to the original program from the original
> licensor -- who's in no position to grant licenses to what I wrote.
> I'm compelled to offer a license under the terms of "this License,"
> which is GPL v2.
See? It makes it much harder to take objections like this seriously
when you switch viewpoints in the middle. You said stuff about
governing terms of distribution in response to my statement that the
original licensor is in no position to grant licenses to my works; now
you've switched to talking about him preventing distribution of
derivative works. Did you have a serious point in here?
-Brian
--
Brian Sniffen bts@alum.mit.edu
Reply to: