Re: NEW ocaml licence proposal by upstream, will be part of the 3.08.1 release going into sarge.
On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 02:19:23PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> Raul Miller writes:
> >On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 09:59:30AM +0200, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> >> Which is GPL v2, nothing else.
> >
> >GPL v2 includes section 9.
> >
> >The terms in section 9 do not offer distributors the option
> >of avoiding future versions of the GPL.
> >
> >So either:
> >
> >[a] You are ignorant of the terms of the license, and "nothing
> >else" has no meaning, or
> >
> >[b] You are trying to distribute under terms more restrictive
> >than that of GPL v2.
> >
> >Which is it?
>
> Erm...
>
> ---
>
> 9. The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new versions
> of the General Public License from time to time. Such new versions will
> be similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in detail to
> address new problems or concerns.
>
> 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.
>
> ---
>
> 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.
The problem arrive if you release a patch that sayd GPL v2 alone, against a
program which is GPL v2 and later. Well, this is ok as long as you don't
produce a binary distribution, but once you do, i believe that the term of the
more permisive of the two must apply, right ? Since you are not allowed to
drop the permissions you got with the original program.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: