Re: GPL "or any greater version"
> > 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".
On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 09:32:51PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> 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.
Wrong "it".
Copyright holder (C) distributes Program (P) under GPL 2 or later version.
You, the developer (D) modify P and redistribute it (P2) to other users
(U). You choose to distribute P2 and you choose to do so only under the
terms of GPL v2. However, in doing so, you've ensured U has received
P2 under the terms you received it, and with no additional restrictions.
In other words you have limited yourself to GPL v2 but that still means
that you have to grant U the right to distribute under other versions
as well. Because that's written into GPL v2.
And, note that C can be a member of the set U.
So, anways, at some point, C releases GPL v3 which is identical to
the license that Trolltech would have used. At that point, how is the
outcome different from the program having originally been licensed under
the GPL instead of the QPL?
> > 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.
Which includes sections 1, 2, 4, 6 and 9.
1 requires that you keep all copyright notices intact (that includes the
'and later versions' notice).
2 requires that you license the program under the same license.
4 prohibits you from licensing in a way not expressly allowed by the
license
6 says the terms and conditions of the original program are also granted
to other recipients -- that you can't impose any further restrictions
9 gives recipients who get a copy of the program which has the 'and
later versions' notice the right to choose to use a later version.
Now you're claiming that those users don't have this right.
So you've lost all GPL rights to distribute the Program.
> I may not impose any further restrictions, yes, but only relative to
> "this License".
Which, among other things, requires you not remove the 'and any later
version' notice.
> 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?
BSD doesn't impose any such restrictions, so I don't see why you'd care
if you lost GPL rights in that case.
> > 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?
Last I saw, he was still waiting for clarification of an unofficial
answer.
--
Raul
Reply to: