Re: GPL "or any greater version"
Raul Miller <moth@debian.org> writes:
>> > "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).
Rather than continuing to assume that I'm an idiot, please try to
imagine reasonable things I might mean. You were talking about how
"portions copyright foo"-style notices didn't work; I provided a
reference to a GPL'd project (Mozilla) in which they are used.
>> > 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.
Sigh. You aren't even reading your own text any more, much less
mine. You said the copyright file doesn't work for indicating
boundaries of works. I said it does. Now you've chosen to read my
response as referring to placing further restrictions.
>> > 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.
What I have said is very relevant: Go read GPL 6: it provides a grant
of license from the original licensor. You can't claim that "the
Program" means *my* work and "the Licensor" means the FSF at the same time.
> 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).
What? That's mad. Why can't I put my parts into the public domain
and distribute them, or put them under some GPL-compatible license and
distribute them?
--
Brian Sniffen bts@alum.mit.edu
Reply to: