On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 05:58:40PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote: > I disagree that there are only two options. Section 9 provides two > options, but does not expressly prohibit options of the form "This > code is distributed under the General Public License, version 2."
I agree. > Do you believe there is an implicit prohibition of such licenses? Section 4 contains an explicit prohibition on implicit options. > > [Which means what, in the context of gcc?] > > The copyright holder of GCC (the FSF) uses the "version 2, or (at your > option) any later version" clause, so anyone may elect to use GPLv2 > (or 3, if and when it is released, etc) as a license. Agreed. Which means that the copyright holder of gcc has the right to re-license derived works and no one else has this right. And someone has claimed would make gcc non-free. [Personally, I don't agree that this makes gcc non-free, as this does not in any way prevent porting, bug fixes, any other such activities.] > > You seem to be claiming that the GPL implicitly allows the constraint > > "no future versions of the GPL may be used" as if that constraint were > > written into the license (see section 8 for an explicit example of this > > kind of language). > > I claim that one clause of section 9 is only active if the software > explicitly triggers it by saying "or any later version". The other > clause of section 9 is active only if the software implicitly triggers > it (by not specifying any version). And what about programs like echo? $ echo GPL v2 or any later version. $ echo foo Another possibility is that the clause in question must be a part of the copyright. And, for other people to be able to redistribute the program, this copyright can't prohibit people from distributing the program under the terms of the GPL. [Unless, of course, the copyright allows for some other form of distribution.] > > Unlike some other people, you're not claiming that anyone other than the > > copyright holder can impose such a constraint (which means I don't have > > to bring in section 6). > > A combined work may include GPLv2-or-any-later-version parts in a > GPLv2-only whole. That's an assertion. > In a GPLv>=2 (please excuse the shorthand) whole, someone downstream > may choose to distribute only under the GPLv2. I believe that is > permitted, although it would be rude and probably dishonest. The way I read it, a person downstream can distribute gcc exclusively under the terms of GPLv2, but there's no legal way for this person to prevent other people from using a later version of the GPL. > > However, you do seem to be ignoring section 4. Or can you show me how > > "except as expressly provided under this License" allows for implied > > terms which are not written into the license? > > Section 9 has two conditional parts. I do not believe it is the > intent of the FSF (or any real author) to use section 4 or 6 to > exclude use of a specific version of the GPL for software that > triggers one of those section 9 conditions. I'll believe that if I see a statement to that effect from RMS. -- Raul