On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 12:47:07AM +0100, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote: > Could you please clarify this? > > Section 2(b) says ``under the terms of this License'', i.e. GPL-2. I > don't see anything in Section 5 to that effect. > > | This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify > | it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by > | the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or > | (at your option) any later version. > > That is, you explicitly license it under version two, _and_ any later > version.
I accept only version 2 of the licence, as is my option. "This License" now
means "version 2 only". Not to mention the fact that "this License" pretty
clearly refers to the text of the GPL, not the licence grant. It is
generally understood that dual licencing a work allows recipients to choose
either licence; by your reasoning, if something is dual-licenced GPL/QPL
(for instance), by the terms of the GPL my changes have to be dual-licenced
GPL/QPL, and anything that links to the program must be GPL/QPL, making
dual-licencing useless.
- Matt
(Now I *know* my sigmonster is sentient. It's picked this quote randomly
twice in a row for you. Oh, and "hook, line, and sinker" for last time.)
--
"The day when Hurd is so common that we want to emulate its braindamages is
not going to be in my life-time, I suspect."
-- Linus Torvalds
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Gnu-arch-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-arch-users GNU arch home page: http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/gnu-arch/
