Is Apple Now Blocking Contributions To GCC?

[RealNC]

The point is that the copyright holder can not prevent the FSF from providing the code as GPLv3. Note that the GPL is about using, modifying and distributing the code. Apple still owns the code and can keep providing it as GPLv2. But for that matter, anyone else and not just Apple can too. But the FSF cannot be prevented from integrating it as GPLv3 inside GCC, which is what matters in this case.

"No additional obligations are imposed on any author or copyright holder" means that the FSF cannot prevent anyone from using the code as GPLv2. But the reverse is also true: no one can prevent the FSF from using it as GPLv3.

Do not forget the "copyleft" nature of the GPL here.

[bridgman]

I believe the purpose of the "or later" wording is to allow what would otherwise be GPL v2 code to be used in a GPL v3 (or later) project *without* the need to relicense.

I don't believe the GPL v2 license allows a third party to relicense to a later version of GPL, let me check...

...

Nope, GPL v2 section 9 talks about the "or later" option as well...

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.html

[RealNC]

So, where's the problem then? It says:

"If the Program specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and "any later version", you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that version or of any later version published by the Free Software Foundation."

Which just confirms what I said. It's 100% compatible with GPLv3 and the FSF can ship it and modify it as they please under GPLv3 rules without Apple having a say in the matter.

Maybe that's not "relicensing", but what does it matter? The FSF picks the "or any later version" from the license. You can't choose both at the same time (the nature of "or"). Anyone else is still free to use that specific code (and only that code) as GPLv2. If that's what the FSF doesn't want, well, their loss.

[KDesk]

But they (FSF or anyone that doesn't have the copyright) can not change the sources files and remove the "version 2 or later" and replace it with "version 3 or later". The version 2 will be always there as an option unless the copyright holder changes it.

[bridgman]

...Which just confirms what I said. It's 100% compatible with GPLv3 and the FSF can ship it and modify it as they please under GPLv3 rules without Apple having a say in the matter.

Maybe that's not "relicensing", but what does it matter? ...

The reason it mattered was that only you knew what you were trying to say. The rest of us could only look at the words you used (eg "license as...") and *guess* what you were trying to say from those words

Anyways, I think we agree, as long as you also agree with what KDesk said, ie that only the copyright holder(s) acting together can change the licensing text in the files.

[Remco]

But they (FSF or anyone that doesn't have the copyright) can not change the sources files and remove the "version 2 or later" and replace it with "version 3 or later". The version 2 will be always there as an option unless the copyright holder changes it.

Oh but you can. You can at your option remove it. And "version 3 or later" satisfies "version 2 or later".

[bridgman]

The "version 2 or later" license text says that the copyright holder is allowing you to *use* the code under GPLv2, v3 or later (ie you can mix it in with a v3 program) but I don't think that gives you the right to update the file to *remove* another party's ability to use the code under v2 rules (which is what changing the license to v3 would do).

Only the copyright holder can change the license to one which is incompatible with the original license. A third party could change X11-licensed code to GPL (since X11 licensing allows redistribution under almost any license) although the project rules would probably not allow that GPL-licensed code back into the X11-licensed project, but that same third party would not be able to change GPL-licensed code to X11, or change GPL v2-licensed code to GPL v3.

[Remco]

The "version 2 or later" license text says that the copyright holder is allowing you to *use* the code under GPLv2, v3 or later (ie you can mix it in with a v3 program) but I don't think that gives you the right to update the file to *remove* another party's ability to use the code under v2 rules (which is what changing the license to v3 would do).

See it this way: the copyright holder gives you the right to use the code under GPL versions 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, ..., n. They basically gave you an infinite number of licenses. You pick versions 3 through n as the licenses for your particular distribution of the code.

You don't remove someone's ability to use the original code under v2 rules, because you as the not-copyright-holder can't change the license (actually, not even the copyright holder can do that, because the GPL is perpetual). The only thing you do, is pick some of the licenses that the actual copyright holder gave you, and use those for your distribution.

[bridgman]

I'm not sure what you are saying :

Oh but you can. You can at your option remove it. And "version 3 or later" satisfies "version 2 or later".

See it this way: the copyright holder gives you the right to use the code under GPL versions 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, ..., n. They basically gave you an infinite number of licenses. You pick versions 3 through n as the licenses for your particular distribution of the code.

The first comment suggests changing the license string in your copy of the files, while I'm not sure whether the second comment is saying "change the license string" or "leave the license string unchanged in your copy but only use the files in a distribution which otherwise contains just v3 and higher code".

[Remco]

I'm not sure what you are saying :





The first comment suggests changing the license string in your copy of the files, while I'm not sure whether the second comment is saying "change the license string" or "leave the license string unchanged in your copy but only use the files in a distribution which otherwise contains just v3 and higher code".

I'm also not quite sure what you're saying. Let me just say what I believe to be true: if someone gives you multiple (transferable) licenses to some body of code, you can pick and choose which license(s) to use for your copy of the code, and distribute accordingly.