Re: GPL "or any greater version" (was: NEW ocaml licence proposal)
Raul Miller writes:
> > > On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 02:42:25PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> > > > What rights from the GPL are being restricted by using a specific
> > > > version of it?
>
> > Raul Miller writes:
> > > The right to use other versions of the GPL.
>
> On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 03:35:34PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> > Please explain where that right comes from by citing unconditional
> > parts of the GPL.
>
> Section 9 contains two options, neither allows you to drop that right.
I disagree that there are only two options. Section 9 provides two
options, but does not expressly prohibit options of the form "This
code is distributed under the General Public License, version 2." Do
you believe there is an implicit prohibition of such licenses?
> > As I said in the rest of my post (which you
> > omitted):
> >
> > > > Section 9 only describes what happens when the original copyright
> > > > holder(s) indicate "<x> or any greater version" or if they do not
> > > > mention any version.
> >
> > Section 9 simply does not give the right to choose any version of the
> > GPL other than what is specified by the copyright holder.
>
> [Which means what, in the context of gcc?]
The copyright holder of GCC (the FSF) uses the "version 2, or (at your
option) any later version" clause, so anyone may elect to use GPLv2
(or 3, if and when it is released, etc) as a license.
> You seem to be claiming that the GPL implicitly allows the constraint
> "no future versions of the GPL may be used" as if that constraint were
> written into the license (see section 8 for an explicit example of this
> kind of language).
I claim that one clause of section 9 is only active if the software
explicitly triggers it by saying "or any later version". The other
clause of section 9 is active only if the software implicitly triggers
it (by not specifying any version).
> Unlike some other people, you're not claiming that anyone other than the
> copyright holder can impose such a constraint (which means I don't have
> to bring in section 6).
A combined work may include GPLv2-or-any-later-version parts in a
GPLv2-only whole.
In a GPLv>=2 (please excuse the shorthand) whole, someone downstream
may choose to distribute only under the GPLv2. I believe that is
permitted, although it would be rude and probably dishonest.
> However, you do seem to be ignoring section 4. Or can you show me how
> "except as expressly provided under this License" allows for implied
> terms which are not written into the license?
Section 9 has two conditional parts. I do not believe it is the
intent of the FSF (or any real author) to use section 4 or 6 to
exclude use of a specific version of the GPL for software that
triggers one of those section 9 conditions.
This is in contrast to copyleft licenses like the Free Art license[1],
which *do* enforce "or any later version" in the core license.
[1]- http://artlibre.org/licence.php/lalgb.html
Michael Poole
Reply to: