Re: GPL "or any greater version"
Raul Miller <moth@debian.org> writes:
>> > On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 02:42:25PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
>> > > What rights from the GPL are being restricted by using a specific
>> > > version of it?
>
>> Raul Miller writes:
>> > The right to use other versions of the GPL.
>
> On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 03:35:34PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
>> Please explain where that right comes from by citing unconditional
>> parts of the GPL.
>
> Section 9 contains two options, neither allows you to drop that right.
>
>> As I said in the rest of my post (which you
>> omitted):
>>
>> > > Section 9 only describes what happens when the original copyright
>> > > holder(s) indicate "<x> or any greater version" or if they do not
>> > > mention any version.
>>
>> Section 9 simply does not give the right to choose any version of the
>> GPL other than what is specified by the copyright holder.
>
> [Which means what, in the context of gcc?]
That the FSF can change the terms under which they distribute gcc, but
not the terms under which they distribute my modifications.
> 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 think it's explicit in the phrase "this License" in GPL 2b -- that I
must provide my modifications under that license, and may provide
under others if I choose. I don't see any compulsion to grant the
copyright holder or others the ability to treat my modifications which
say "GPL v2" as if they said "GPL v>=2"
> 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).
GPL 6 only applies to the original work. Looking at GPL 6 in the case
of distribution of a modified work, I see the following as a
reasonable restatement:
When distributing a modified work, the recipient receives a license
from the author of the original, unmodified program. The distributor
cannot impose any restrictions on that license.
As I've said several times, it's the "public" part, ensuring
propagation of the license on the original. It doesn't say anything
about the license on my modifications, which is only mentioned in GPL 2.
> 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?
I don't think this has anything to do with implied terms which are not
written into the license -- and certainly nothing to do with GPL 4.
--
Brian Sniffen bts@alum.mit.edu
Reply to: