Re: NEW ocaml licence proposal by upstream, will be part of the 3.08.1 release going into sarge.
> Raul Miller wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 02:19:23PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> >>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.
> > I can see why you'd think that. However, that's not one of the terms
> > offered by GPL v2.
On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 09:47:34PM +0100, Marco Franzen wrote:
> It actually is, even explicitly. Section 0:
> | 0. This License applies to any program or other work which contains
> | a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed
> | under the terms of this General Public License.
> It does not say "or any later version" here, and "this General Public
> License" is of course this GPL v2.
Now that's an interesting point.
However, as GPL means "General Public License", I'm not certain that
"this General Public License" means the same thing as "this General
Public License v2".
> So in section 0, GPL v2 declares itself applicable to works
> that contain a notice saying it is.
I agree with this. Of course "this GPL" includes section 9.
In any event, all this is completely tangential in the context of GCC
(which does not attempt to claim that later versions of the GPL can't