Re: GPL "or any greater version"
Raul Miller <moth@debian.org> writes:
>> > I disagree -- section 9 gives you the option of replacing GPL v2 with
>> > later versions.
>
> On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 08:42:50PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>> 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?
>
> The fact that it doesn't provide terms for any other cases, and another
> part of the license says "You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or
> distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License".
>
> I might be wrong on that point -- that would be up to a judge to decide.
>
> But, frankly, the point about what the oopyright holder can do doesn't
> really matter because there are significant programs (such as gcc)
> where the copyright holder has specified "or any later version".
>
> And, that's what you have called "compulsions of asymmetric privileges".
No, because it specifically says that it's at *my* option -- the
recipients -- both in the grant "GPL v2 or, at your option, any later
version" and in GPL 9.
> Once you've distributed a change to gcc, the copyright holder is free
> to redistribute that change under any future version of the GPL, and
> there's nothing you can do to prevent that. [Your distribution can
> be "only under the terms of GPLv2", but each recipient "automatically
> receives a license from the original licensor" and "You may not impose
> any further restrictions".]
He receives a license to the original program from the original
licensor -- who's in no position to grant licenses to what I wrote.
I'm compelled to offer a license under the terms of "this License,"
which is GPL v2.
I may not impose any further restrictions, yes, but only relative to
"this License". If, for example, I receive something under "GPL, any
version, or BSD", do you think I have to not only pass that along but
license my modifications in the same way?
> Every serious counter argument I've seen to my argument that GPL's
> section 9 provides the same kind of asymmetry as you've objected to in
> the QPL has focussed on the copyright holder prohibiting later versions.
I think I've made some others, but I can see how they'd be lost in the
noise. Do you not find the FSF answer which Glenn relayed convincing,
or did it cross paths with this message?
-Brian
--
Brian Sniffen bts@alum.mit.edu
Reply to: