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

Re: GPL "or any greater version"

On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 03:22:47PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> > But there's a bigger problem: you're advocating that the GPL was designed
> > to allow a developer to impose a restriction on subsequent users which
> > [a] is not expressed explicitly in the GPL, and [b] was not imposed by
> > the original developer.  This conflicts with the expressed design intent
> > of the GPL (see the preamble).  This also conflicts with how the GPL
> > deals with another case of an optional restriction (see section 8).

On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 02:43:25PM -0700, David Schleef wrote:
> If you dual-license code under the MPL and GPL, anyone may
> modify and distribute the modification as GPL-only.  How is
> that different from your situation?

Well, first off, the GPL does not include an explicit reference to
the MPL.

That said, the GPL requires that copyright notices be kept intact.  So,
if the person who offered both licenses didn't provide a clear statement
about this exception to the GPL (that the MPL copyright notices may be
removed), it might not be legal for people to remove the MPL copyright

That said, if the copyright holder intends for people to remove the MPL
option then he isn't likely to care, and the issue is not likely to wind
up in court.

It might even be that only if you have someone like SCO involved that
the case would wind up in court.

> Using the phrase "or any later version" is merely dual-licensing 
> (rather, multi-licensing) code under the GPLv2, GPLv3, etc.

Even if we consider this phrase to refer to license version, there's
still the issue that it's an explicit part of the license terms, and
the GPL has special requirements about license terms, beyond those of
a normal copyright.

Alternatively, if you're talking about the use of this phrase in a
copyright notice:  Yes, in that context I agree with you.


Reply to: