Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> > I disagree -- section 9 gives you the option of replacing GPL v2 with >> > later versions. > > On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 08:42:50PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: >> Only in two very specific circumstances: if you received the work with >> "or any later version," or if no version number was specified at all. >> >> What makes you think it's general? > > The fact that it doesn't provide terms for any other cases, and another > part of the license says "You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or > distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License". > > I might be wrong on that point -- that would be up to a judge to decide. > > But, frankly, the point about what the oopyright holder can do doesn't > really matter because there are significant programs (such as gcc) > where the copyright holder has specified "or any later version". > > And, that's what you have called "compulsions of asymmetric privileges".
No, because it specifically says that it's at *my* option -- the recipients -- both in the grant "GPL v2 or, at your option, any later version" and in GPL 9. > 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. I may not impose any further restrictions, yes, but only relative to "this License". If, for example, I receive something under "GPL, any version, or BSD", do you think I have to not only pass that along but license my modifications in the same way? > Every serious counter argument I've seen to my argument that GPL's > section 9 provides the same kind of asymmetry as you've objected to in > the QPL has focussed on the copyright holder prohibiting later versions. I think I've made some others, but I can see how they'd be lost in the noise. Do you not find the FSF answer which Glenn relayed convincing, or did it cross paths with this message? -Brian -- Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
