Re: GPL "or any greater version" (was: NEW ocaml licence proposal)
On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 05:58:40PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> 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."
I agree.
> Do you believe there is an implicit prohibition of such licenses?
Section 4 contains an explicit prohibition on implicit options.
> > [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.
Agreed.
Which means that the copyright holder of gcc has the right to re-license
derived works and no one else has this right. And someone has claimed
would make gcc non-free. [Personally, I don't agree that this makes
gcc non-free, as this does not in any way prevent porting, bug fixes,
any other such activities.]
> > 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).
And what about programs like echo?
$ echo GPL v2 or any later version.
$ echo foo
Another possibility is that the clause in question must be a part of
the copyright. And, for other people to be able to redistribute the
program, this copyright can't prohibit people from distributing the
program under the terms of the GPL. [Unless, of course, the copyright
allows for some other form of distribution.]
> > 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.
That's an assertion.
> 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.
The way I read it, a person downstream can distribute gcc exclusively
under the terms of GPLv2, but there's no legal way for this person to
prevent other people from using a later version of the GPL.
> > 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.
I'll believe that if I see a statement to that effect from RMS.
--
Raul
Reply to: