[Gnu-arch-users] Re: contributors' licensing conditions

[Matthew Palmer]

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