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>]

Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr> writes:

> 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.

Why not?  You must distribute under the terms of "this License," which
is clearly the GNU General Public License, version 2.  That phrase is
used very often in the GPL, always referring to just that specific
text.

-Brian

-- 
Brian Sniffen                                       bts@alum.mit.edu