Re: GPL "or any greater version"
Raul Miller <moth@debian.org> writes:
> 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.]
Indeed, "available under GPL v2" is positive only -- it doesn't
indicate that it's *not* available under GPL v3 or the BSD license or
something else
> 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.
Only in two very specific circumstances: if you received the work with
"or any later version," or if no version number was specified at all.
What makes you think it's general?
-Brian
--
Brian Sniffen bts@alum.mit.edu
Reply to: