RE: GPL version, "at your option"?

["David Schwartz" <davids@webmaster.com>]

> On Nov 17, 2004, at 21:50, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > Yes, but the additions I made will be GPLv3 only (no sources). So I
> > will
> > gladly provide you with the sources off kernel.org and you will never
> > see
> > the sources for a driver I wrote. See?
>
> What about section 2, subsection B of the GPL:
> > b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in
> >     whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any
> >     part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third
> >     parties under the terms of this License.
>
> "this License", would refer to the specific version of the license.

	Precisely!

> This means
> that since the original code is dual-licensed under both versions, any
> code
> that is a derivative work must _also_ be dual-licensed (This assumes of
> course that the other license has a similar clause).  In any case, any
> work
> derived from a GPLv2'ed work must also be licensable under the GPLv2.
> Therefore, my request for _your_ source-code under the GPLv2 is
> perfectly
> valid.

	No, the code being dual-licensed means you get to choose which license you
wish to comply with, not that you must comply with both. So long as you
comply with either license, you have the right to do whatever the license
you comply with gives you the right to do.

	Let's suppose, hypothetically, that you were right. Then let's further
suppose that GPL version 3 did not let you modify the source code at all.
Would you argue that all code with the "at your option" clause now can't be
modified? (Since modifying it would violate the GPLv3 license, and you seem
to think you can't violate either license.)

	DS