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

[Raul Miller <moth@debian.org>]

> > 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.

On Wed, Aug 25, 2004 at 05:22:13PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> 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.

You need to release your changes under the same terms you received the
Program, or you lose your rights to distribute the Program.

> 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.

Nothing prevents you from releasing under GPL v2, as long as you haven't
removed any rights granted in the license.  Among those rights are some
rights to instead use some potential alternate versions 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
> 
> 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.

I think you're losing track of your own argument.  If "mentioned but not
used" were a DFSG issue, then GPL section 3 which allows the distributor
to make a choice between specific terms would make the GPL violate
the DFSG.

But in the current hypothetical situation we're not talking about choosing
among alternatives offered by the license -- instead we're talking about
choosing an option not expressed in the license (<<GPL v2 and no later
versions>>) over the terms expressed in the license (<<any version of
the GPL>> or (<<GPL v2 or later versions>>).

My claim is that you are not allowed to distribute GPLed software under
terms more restrictive than those present in the GPL.

> > 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.

The GPL doesn't grant you the right to distribute gcc in a fashion where
users of your modified version have any fewer permissions under copyright
than you.

If you were the copyright holder, that would be different -- you wouldn't
have had to use the GPL at all -- but in our hypothetical example
(submitting a change for gcc) you are not the copyright holder.

> > 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.

Which includes section 9, which grants users the right to choose to use
other versions of the GPL.  Section 9 doesn't say you can distribute under
"GPL v2 and no later versions".

I'll agree that if section 9 were not included in the terms of "this
license" that you wouldn't have this requirement.  But I've not seen
you offer any reason to believe that the terms of section 9 are not a
part of the terms of "this license".

-- 
Raul