Re: NEW ocaml licence proposal by upstream, will be part of the 3.08.1 release going into sarge.
> > 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.
On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 11:43:14AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> What do you mean that's not one of the terms offered?
I mean, when I read the terms of version 2 of the GPL, I don't see that
one offered in the sense of disallowing the user to use later versions
of the GPL.
Being available under version 2 of the GPL is certainly valid. My point
was simply that this doesn't have the meaning some people seem to be
trying to claim -- that of disallowing the user to use GPL v3.
> If I say something is available under the terms of the GPL v2, what do you
> think that means? Legally null?
No, it means that it is available under the terms of the GPL v2 -- thus,
where that version of the GPL offers options, you may choose any of the
options it offers.
> 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.
And I agree with them.
--
Raul
Reply to: