This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: RFH: GPLv3
> >> Note that the issue, in practice, isn't what the FSF distributes but what
> >> a third party (RedHat, Apple, AdaCore, etc) distributes.
> FSF determines the minimum level of the GPL license, not RedHat.
Yes, sure. However, the issue here is not what the license actually
*is*, but how one is to *know* what it is. If I get something
directly from the FSF, I can have *some* degree of confidence that the
text in the files actually corresponds to that license. If I get it from
party X, there's no way that I can know whether or not party X modified
the text in the file so that it no longer reflects the proper license.
> > One thing which hasn't been emphasised enough in this discussion is that
> > the version of the GPL under which a file is licensed according to its
> > header does not govern how *you* may receive that file, nor place
> > obligations on the person distributing that file to you: it places
> > obligations on (and grants corresponding rights to) you in any *further*
> > act of distribution.
> The GPL does places the same requirements on distributors.
Yes, but please re-read the above very carefully! If I obtain GPLv2
software, relicense it as GPLv3 (which I can do), and then distribute it to
you, the terms of the GPL that apply to *me* is v2 (since that's the
license I obtained the software with), but you must follow the terms of
GPLv3 (since that's the license *you* got).
> A contract requires two (or more) parties to come to an agreement.
> GPL is a license. The GPL is not a contract. There isn't even an implied
A license is a form of a contract. Look at nolo.com, a site aimed at
giving legal advice to laypeople. They define "license" as "A contract
giving written permission to use ...".
Indeed a key issue in using the GPL is what establishes the legal
relationship necessary to the contract.