Ahh, now I get you

Post #218,995 by drewk 8/12/05 10:01:35 AM Reply	Ahh, now I get you I think this is a clearer example: Joe creates an app and releases under "GPLv2 or later". Bob takes that app, modifies it, and releases under "GPLv3 or later" You're saying that Bob can't do that, because GPLv3 is more restrictive than GPLv2, so applying that license to Joe's app violates the license it was originally released under. I think that's a matter of interpretation. By saying "or later" Joe has given permission in advance to distribute his code in accordance with any future versions of the GPL. Whether it is a good idea to grant in advance permission to yet-unwritten terms is a whole different issue. Now if Bob does release under "GPLv3 or later", Jim can still take Joe's original work, modify it, and release under "GPLv2", "GPLv2 or later", "GPLv3", or "GPLv3 or later". He can also take Bob's work, modify it, and release under "GPLv3" or "GPLv3 or later" What he can't do is release under "GPLv2". === Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link\|http://DocHope.com\|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats]. [link\|http://DocHope.com\|http://DocHope.com]
Post #219,004 by ubernostrum 8/12/05 11:02:24 AM Reply	Not quite Joe writes the program and Bob wants to distribute it, possibly modify it too. Assume Joe offers GPLv2 "or any later version", and that v3 is incompatible with v2. Bob has to abide by the terms of some version of the GPL when he distributes, and that limits what he can offer to his licensees. Here's how it breaks down: \r\n\r\n \r\n If Bob chooses to abide by GPLv2 in his distribution, then he can't offer v3 as an option (because it's more restrictive and thus he'd violate v2), and can't use the "or any later version" clause, because that includes an offer of v3. So if Bob picks v2, he's stuck with v2 and so are all his licensees. \r\n If Bob chooses to abide by GPLv3 in his distribution, then he may offer the "or any later version" clause, but he'll be in trouble if v4 turns out to be incompatible with v3. So for safety's sake he'd better not. Whether he can offer the option of v3 or v2 to his licensees is debatable; considering that this involves offering the licensees the right to do something not permitted by v3 (i.e., taking v2 and using the program in a web service without offering source), he probably can't, and at the very least he should abide by Section 10 of GPLv2 and write to Joe to ask about this. But to really be safe, if he picks v3 he should stick with v3 and only offer v3 to all his licensees. \r\n --\r\nYou cooin' with my bird? \r\n[link\|http://www.shtuff.us/\|shtuff]
Post #219,012 by ben_tilly 8/12/05 11:24:24 AM Reply	I'm trying to figure out why you don't "get" this If Bob chooses to abide by GPLv2 in his distribution, then he can't offer v3 as an option (because it's more restrictive and thus he'd violate v2), and can't use the "or any later version" clause, because that includes an offer of v3. So if Bob picks v2, he's stuck with v2 and so are all his licensees. Um, no. If Bob chooses to abide by GPL v2 in his distribution, he cannot choose to relicense under GPL v3. However if Bob chooses to abide by GPL v2 in his distribution and it came to him GPL v2 or later, he can choose to license the result GPL v2 or later because that license violates no copyrights and grants all of the rights to the recipient that GPL v2 requires him to grant. (Any recipient has the choice of choosing GPL v2, which grants them the necessary freedoms.) If Bob distributes to Jane under those more generous terms then copyright law says, and the GPL v2 makes crystal clear in section 9, that Jane may choose to ignore the option of GPL v2 and instead receive the code under GPL v3. Presumably the GPL v3 will allow one to license under GPL v3 or later, since that is what the FSF is likely to want to encourage people to do. The GPL says, "What you do must accomplish these goals." It does not say, "You must apply this exact copyright license to your work." The omission is very much not accidental... 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 #219,060 by ubernostrum 8/12/05 3:06:19 PM Reply	Modifications are only made under the terms of one license However if Bob chooses to abide by GPL v2 in his distribution and it came to him GPL v2 or later, he can choose to license the result GPL v2 or later because that license violates no copyrights and grants all of the rights to the recipient that GPL v2 requires him to grant. (Any recipient has the choice of choosing GPL v2, which grants them the necessary freedoms.) \r\n\r\n Um, no. Here's where you don't seem to "get it": \r\n\r\n If Bob does takes some action which requires him to accept and abide by the terms of the GPL, then Bob has to choose one and only one version of the GPL to accept and abide by. This is the same as any other dual- or multi-licensing scheme: you don't receive the program under all those licenses at once, but instead choose one and abide by it. \r\n\r\n And it is because of this that Bob's options in licensing the program to third parties will be limited; since it's the situation we've been working with previously, let's assume that Bob chooses to accept GPLv2, and that GPLv3 imposes additional restrictions on use which make it incompatible with v2. Now, Bob can modify and distribute under GPLv2 in that case, but he cannot make the "any later version" offer. That would mean offering to license under GPLv3 and since we've postulated that GPLv3 imposes additional restrictions, and since imposing additional restrictions on his licensees would violate the GPLv2 which Bob has accepted, he can't make the "any later version" offer without violating GPLv2. \r\n\r\n Again, the moral of this story is that a GPLv2-incompatible GPLv3 would be the mother of all headaches. --\r\nYou cooin' with my bird? \r\n[link\|http://www.shtuff.us/\|shtuff]
Post #219,084 by ben_tilly 8/12/05 4:56:02 PM Reply	Where does the GPL v2 say that? Where does the GPL v2 say anything that prevents you from returning patches GPL v2 or later if you received it GPL v2 or later? You keep on making this assertion, and you're wrong. Obviously you think that you're right, so please quote, chapter and verse what in the GPL v2 forces this to be true, and explain your reasoning. You've ignored me before when I've explained why the GPL v2 doesn't require this, but let me waste time once more explaining why. Here's the situation. Bob receives a program from Alice that is licensed GPL v2 or later. The GPL v3 has terms that are incompatible with the GPL v2. Bob makes modifications, marks them in accord with the GPL v2, and distributes this to Jane, and wants to make the modified version licensed GPL v2 or later. For the sake of simplicity, Bob is distributing this in code form, with the same licensing information attached that he received, and the program is not interactive. Does that pass muster with the GPL? Section by section let's see. He is not distributing a verbatim copy, so this section does not apply. He has modified, so he needs to meet this section's requirements. He has added the necessary notices. Check. The whole is available under the GPL v2. Check. (It is also available under the GPL v3...) It is not interactive, so this is satisfied. He is not distributing in object or executable form, so this section does not apply. He is attempting to operate under this license, so this prohibition does not apply. He accepts this license, so this section is not an issue. This applies to Jane, not Bob. Let's suppose that there has not yet been a court order triggering this section. Let's assume that Alice has not triggered this section. This section explicitly says that it is OK for Jane to choose to receive the code under GPL v3 no matter how that license may differ from GPL v2. Again, not a problem. We are not trying to incorporate this into a program with different licensing, this section does not apply. WE ARE NOT TRYING TO CLAIM A WARRANTY. FINE. WE ARE NOT TRYING TO CLAIM LIABILITY. FINE. Oops, that was the end of the terms and conditions. We did not encounter a single problem! What Bob wants to do is OK! Please explain why you think that the GPL requires that Bob not do what I outlined in this scenario. Be specific. Quote chapter and verse what in the GPL Bob is violating, and explain why Bob's actions violate 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)

Welcome to IWETHEY!

We did not encounter a single problem! What Bob wants to do is OK!