[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: GPL "or any greater version"



> > "Email me to find out copyright terms" is not an appropriate copyright
> > notice.  What happens in copyright terms if the email bounces, for
> > example?

> > "Read the change log to figure out what terms apply where" is not an
> > appropriate copyright notice, either.  Changelogs are inadequate for
> > that purpose.

On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 02:46:19PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> I suggest you open Netscape or Mozilla and look at the about: page.
> You will see copyright notices along the lines I suggest.

Netscape doesn't make any attempt to require that developer rights be
passed on to users.

I don't have Mozilla on any machine I have access to (I use Konqueror
on my machine).

Then again, the mere mention of Netscape shows that you don't understand
the nature of my objections (that they're only relevant in a context
which requires people pass rights on to subsequent users of modified
versions of the program -- my objections are specific to the context of
the GPL and its terms).

> > I don't think you understand what I'm asking.  I'm asking about how
> > you expect the boundaries between the incompatible parts (where future
> > versions of the GPL are allowed and where they're not) are meant to be
> > maintained.  The copyright file won't work for that, unless you place
> > further restrictions on how people edit the program.  

> > But you're not allowed to place further restrictions.
> 
> The copyright file does work for that.  And if you have doubts about
> what is under what license, you can ask the copyright holders.

I agree that the copyright file allows you to place further restrictions
on the derived program.  However, in that circumstance, you're not
allowed to distribute it.

> > Except, section 2 requires that if you choose to distribute the modified
> > program you distribute the modifications such that "this program" also
> > refers to the modifications.
> 
> Yes, but when "this program" is taken as referring to the modified
> version, then the "licensor" is the modifier, not the FSF.

Yeah, great.

I'm disputing the claims you've made about the terms the program is
available under, and you're talking about who holds the copyright on
the program.

Though, I suppose it's worth pointing out, with modified versions both the
FSF and you hold copyrights.  And there's no problem with this unless you
try releasing the program under different terms from what the FSF used.

If you want your bits to be available under different terms from the
FSF's, the right way to do this is make your bits available in some form
which is independent of gcc (or independent of whatever program we're
talking about).

-- 
Raul



Reply to: