Re: GPL "or any greater version" (was: NEW ocaml licence proposal)
On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 10:08:30PM +0100, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
> Have you considered the consequences of your weird legal theory?
>
> Presumably the Linux kernel would be undistributable because it
> contains both "GPL 2" and "GPL >=2" code.
Not if "GPL 2" indicates that GPL v2 applies and not meant to indicate
that other versions do not apply. [Which is how I read section 9.]
Of course a copyright that says "GPL v2 and no other versions of the GPL"
would exclude other versions...
> Also, the main reason for the "or any later version" stuff would
> disappear. The purpose of this is to allow the FSF to correct bugs in
> the GPL. If projects licensed under "GPL >=2" had to be licensed under
> "GPL >=2" forever then it would not be possible to upgrade them to GPL
> 3 by licensing new code under "GPL >=3".
I disagree -- section 9 gives you the option of replacing GPL v2 with
later versions.
> Fortunately your interpretation of the GPL is not the standard one and
> seems rather difficult to justify.
Sure. Except, what you're calling my interpretation bears very little
resemblance to what I think of as my interpretation.
--
Raul
Reply to: