Re: GPL "or any greater version"
Adam McKenna <adam@flounder.net> writes:
> On Tue, Aug 31, 2004 at 12:15:19PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>> > > 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.
>>
>> See? It makes it much harder to take objections like this seriously
>> when you switch viewpoints in the middle. You said stuff about
>> governing terms of distribution in response to my statement that the
>> original licensor is in no position to grant licenses to my works; now
>> you've switched to talking about him preventing distribution of
>> derivative works. Did you have a serious point in here?
>
> It's only "your work" when you distribute it separately, AND when it "can be
> reasonably considered [an] independent and separate work" (GPL section 2).
> Otherwise it's considered a derivative work (at least by the GPL), whether
> you distribute it separately or not.
Many people would stop reading here. The GPL does not define
derivative works in any way. In any case, both the original author
and the preparer of the derivative work own a copyright interest in
it. So it is my work, and it is his work, and since it is not a joint
work, we have to each give a license.
> If the original copyright holder has granted you the right to modify
> and distribute under "any later version" of the GPL, and you fail to give the
> recipients of your deriviate work the same right, then you violate the
> spirit of the GPL, whose preamble states that "if you distribute copies of
> such a program, whether gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients
> all the rights that you have.."
But I have given all the rights that I had -- to the original work.
The recipient can even make his own modifications with the same
functionality as mine! If the spirit doesn't like that, it can sue me.
> I would also imagine it would be within the original author's rights to
> require that any derivative works be distributed with the "or any later
> version" clause.
I'm not sure. Well, it would be within his rights, but it might not be
free software. That's tricky.
-Brian
--
Brian Sniffen bts@alum.mit.edu
Reply to: