And you have the brains of a chihuahua

Post #219,227 by ben_tilly 8/14/05 12:08:36 AM Reply	And you have the brains of a chihuahua There, we can both be silly. Note the phrase that I emphasized. I suggest that you figure out what it means. I further suggest that you read what that sentence says about why no restriction applies and compare it to what I've been saying all along. Ben, you underlined all the words except the one that matters! It says it will not restrict USE. You're trying to say it will not restrict RELICENSING WITH FURTHER RESTRICTIONS. These phrases I've put in bold, dear Ben, are not quite equivalent. No, I am not trying to say that it will not limit relicensing. I am saying that licensing your modifications GPL v2 or later will not conflict with the GPL v2. Let's walk through the scenario again, shall we? Alice produces a work licensed GPL v2 or later. Bob modifies it and redistributes it to Jane licensed GPL v2 or later. Jane modifies it and redistributes it licensed GPL v3 or greater. Is this allowed? I believe that we both agree that Alice is allowed to put any copyright she wants on her code. The FAQ item that you quoted agrees with me, and makes it clear that Bob is allowed, under the GPL v2, to make modifications and redistribute them as GPL v2 or later if Alice's code was already GPL v2 or later. (We're agreed that he can't put an arbitrary license on Alice's code.) Copyright law, common sense, and section 9 of the GPL v2 all agree that Jane can choose to receive that code under the GPL v3. Assuming that the GPL v3 allows it, Jane can license her changes GPL v3 or later without problem. Note that we've been arguing about whether Bob can redistribute a modified work under the GPL v2 or later license that he received it under. Bob is not trying to change license terms. Jane is, and she's operating under the (still hypothetical) GPL v3. So relicensing does not enter into the question of whether Bob can do that. And note how that bit neatly explains that the reason why use will not be restricted is the availability under GPLv2. Which implies that receiving the program under GPLv3 would (drumroll please) "impose further restrictions". What can't you do under GPLv2? Oh, yeah, you can't impose further restrictions. You're missing something basic about copyright law. Copyright law restricts distributing copies. It does not restrict receiving copies. When you receive a copy you have no need to accept any copyright license. It is only when you seek to do something prohibited by copyright law that you need to accept a copyright license. Therefore talking about the copyright license that you recieve a copyrighted piece of code under makes no sense. You don't need a license for that, it is not a restricted activity. This point is made fairly explicit in section 5 of the GPL v2. I'm very sorry that you have the reading-comprehension skills of a blind quadruplegic chihuahua, but I'll be happy to keep bludgeoning you with facts until you understand them. You may continue demonstrating your incomprehension if you like. I'm bored, I'm just waiting to see whether you ever notice how completely and utterly wrong you are. And if you do, whether you will have the guts to acknowledge it. Regards, Ben I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
Post #219,239 by ubernostrum 8/14/05 1:37:51 AM Reply	See, here's the thing You seem to be assuming that my position is something like "if I receive a GPL program licensed v2 or later, and modify/distribute it as v2 or later, then I am in violation of the license." Your latest makes this abundantly clear, so I'll remind you that my position is this: if I receive a GPL program licensed v2 or later, and if I modify/distribute it as v2 or later, and if v3 comes out and is more restrictive than v2, and if someone chooses to get a copy from me and takes the option of v3, then I am in violation of the license. This stems from the simple, verifiable, undeniable fact that there is no language in the GPL, anywhere or of any sort, which permits me to license a program I obtained under the GPL under more restrictive terms than those of the GPL version I obtained it under. And, in fact, the whole and entire point of the GPL is to make it legally impossible for me to do that. \r\n\r\n So please, demonstrate that you aren't a blind chihuahua and get that through your smug skull. --\r\nYou cooin' with my bird? \r\n[link\|http://www.shtuff.us/\|shtuff]
Post #219,304 by ben_tilly 8/15/05 1:41:06 AM Reply	That is a misunderstanding I hadn't quite anticipated So you believe that Alice writes code that is GPL v2 or later and gives it to Bob, Bob modifies it and releases the modified version GPL v2 or later to Jane, then Jane modifies and later redistributes under GPL v3 to John, that Bob is in violation of GPL v2 at the point that Jane chooses GPL v3? Do you have any idea how ridiculous this is? Suppose that Bob gives Jane the code, and Jane sits on it for a year and a day. Then you'd have us believe that for a year and a day that Bob's distribution was OK until Jane decided to choose the GPL v3? Um, sorry. It doesn't work like that. Either Bob's distribution to Jane is OK, or it isn't OK. At the point of distribution. Which happens before Jane has any reason to accept any copyright license. (Which might be never. That is, after all, how many times that I've needed to accept the copyright license on Linux.) And, as I've pointed out many times, as long as the option of GPL v2 is available, you've satisfied the requirements of the GPL v2. The other options that you may or may not provide are irrelevant, the GPL v2 is satisfied if you provide the GPL v2 as an option. (Copyright law may not be satisfied if you try to provide options that you're not allowed to provide, but that is outside of the GPL.) Cheers, Ben I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)

Welcome to IWETHEY!