Re: GPL "or any greater version"
Raul Miller <moth@debian.org> writes:
>> >> Section 9 simply does not give the right to choose any version of the
>> >> GPL other than what is specified by the copyright holder.
>
> Raul Miller <moth@debian.org> writes:
>> > [Which means what, in the context of gcc?]
>
> On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 09:00:00AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>> That the FSF can change the terms under which they distribute gcc, but
>> not the terms under which they distribute my modifications.
>
> Are you claiming?
>
> [a] that the 'or later versions' statement is meaningless, because we
> can only be sure it applies to the original version of gcc, and not to
> any subsequent versions, or
>
> [b] you have some special right to change the terms under which gcc
> is distributed and no one else has that right, or
>
> [c] your changes to gcc are not a part of gcc, and that you're
> not distributing them as such.
I think the last half of [a] and all of [c]. My changes are not part
of FSF GNU gcc. They are part of BTS gcc. The "or later versions"
statement isn't meaningless -- but it is by the FSF, regarding the
code to which they hold copyright. No part of the GPL requires me to
make such statements about the code I write.
>> > 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"
>
> But "this license" includes the options in section 9, and you're claiming
> that other recipients of gcc can't exercise those rights. Furthermore,
> you're claiming this for a case where the program includes statements of
> the form 'GPL v2 or later versions'. What I want to know is the basis
> this claim of yours.
Indeed, "this License" includes the options in section 9 -- but those
options are invoked at the discretion of the licensor, me, by the way
in which I specify versions of the GPL under which I make my code
available.
The FSF licenses their work to me under GPL v2 or later, at my option.
I elect to receive it under GPL v2, and distribute my changes under
GPL v2.
> How are you releasing gcc with those statements intact and yet invalid?
>
> How, specifically, are you preventing others from using GPL v3. Are they
> just supposed to know that you think they shouldn't? Are you introducing
> contradictory more restrictive copyright claims into the program [maybe
> "this program is distributed under the terms of GPL v2 or later, except
> for characters 13907-41228 in foo.c which can only be distributed under
> the terms of GPL v2, and anyone who updates this program has the legal
> obligation to update the above notice so it stays accurate"]?
You always have the legal obligation to maintain accurate copyright
notices. For example, if I made changes to gcc, I might distribute
the results as follows:
"This program is copyright 2004 Brian Sniffen. It is available to you
under the terms of the GNU GPL, version 2. Some portions are
Copyright 1970-2004 Free Software Foundation, and are available to you
under the terms of the GNU GPL, version 2, or at your option any later
version. See the ChangeLog for which parts are Sniffen's and which
parts are FSF's, or contact me at <bts@example.com>."
> Or let's just consider "this program can be distributed under the terms
> of GPL v2 or later, except for foo.c which can only be distributed
> under the terms of GPL v2". On the one hand, you might claim that this
> additional claim isn't a restriction beyond the original terms. But that
> would mean that the contained code can be freely combined with the rest
> of the code of that program. Which means there's no need to leave it
> in foo.c. So, now someone can just take the code out of foo.c and stick
> it in some other file, leaving the empty foo.c with your restrictions
> and leaving the rest of the code under GPLv2 or later versions. "Oh",
> but you claim "that's not legal". So now you claim to have imposed on
> GPL v2 a restriction on moving code from one file to another. "No",
> you claim, "they only have to keep the copyright notice intact".
Yes, they only need to keep the copyright notice accurate.
> Which leaves me wondering: does "keep the copyright notice intact" mean
> that everyone is required to update notices in an ever more complicated
> fashion as code is updated, or does it just mean not changing them
> except in some trivial fashion [such as including them on new media,
> as everyone who distributed using new media is required to do that]?
> [My bet would be on the latter.]
The former. Go read the law, or read the GPL where it talks about
dated notices of any change. That requirement is there for a reason.
> So... let's not have me making stuff up that seems to fit what you've
> said. Instead, let's see an actual gcc patch that doesn't restrict what
> users can do beyond the restrictions contained in the terms of GPL v2
> but still keeps them from using versions of the GPL later than v2.
Is the example I posted above not satisfactory?
>> > 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.
>
> And if you could just modify the GPL to get rid of section 2, this
> might be an important distinction.
Hunh? GPL 2 doesn't interact in the way you seem to think with GPL
6. Each puts requirements on the license notices I must give to
recipients; one puts requirements regarding the license on the
modified work ("this License"), and the other puts requirements
regarding the license notice of the original work ("no restrictions,"
GPL 6).
>> 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.
>
> But since the license is self referential (all those "this license"
> statements), considering section 6 in the absence of section 2 is
> a moot point.
>
> Except, of course, since section 9 allows users to consider later versions
> of the GPL as "this license", you can always hope for some future version
> of the GPL which leaves out section 2.
No, it doesn't. It provides clear documentation of what "any later
version" means, and that's all.
>> > 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.
>
> Ok, so let's see an actual gcc patch that doesn't restrict what users
> can do beyond the restrictions contained in the terms of GPL v2 but
> still keeps them from using gcc under versions of the GPL later than v2.
You've seen it. Now what?
--
Brian Sniffen bts@alum.mit.edu
Reply to: