Re: GPL "or any greater version"
Raul Miller <moth@debian.org> writes:
>> > 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 mean "or, at your option, any later version," right?
> 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.
No. I ensure that U receives a license to *P*, with no additional
restrictions -- that's what GPL 6 requires. I also distribute my
modifications under the terms of "this License" -- the GPLv2 exactly.
> 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.
Not in GPL 2 or 6 or 9, so I don't see where it can be. GPL 2
requires just "this License", 6 only affects the license of the
unmodified code, and 9 only engages if I don't specify a version or
specify "any later version".
> 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?
GPL v3 only applies to the unmodified gcc, not to my changes.
>> > 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).
The license notice only applies to the original code, so "Portions
Copyright 2004 FSF. They are available under the GPL v2, or at your
option any later version" fulfills that part.
> 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.
They certainly have it on the original work. They don't have it for
my modifications. In your argument for why this applies to
modifications, you're reading something into GPL 6 that isn't there.
> 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.
Wow. There's a lot of dual-licensed stuff in Debian. Qt, for
example, is licensed under the GPL or QPL, at the recipient's option.
You seem to be saying that Debian can't distribute that under the GPL
alone.
Also, if I give Debian alone the right to modify my software and
distribute the results without source... now they're screwed! By your
argument, they can't pass that along, but can't distribute under the
GPL without passing it along, so they lose all rights under the GPL.
That doesn't make any sense. The only reading that makes any sense is
for "this License" to be GPLv2 exactly, and that must be carried into
modifications. The original license pertains to the original program,
and must be promulgated but need not be used for derivative code.
-Brian
--
Brian Sniffen bts@alum.mit.edu
Reply to: