GNU GPL "any later version" question

[James Bennett]

I've lately been following a discussion in a web forum which engaged in
wild speculation about things which might or might not be in version 3
of the GNU GPL, and out of that came a hypothetical situation I'm
curious about. Here's a rough summary:

1. I receive a program licensed GPLv2 "or any later version", as
recommended by the FSF, and exercise my right to obtain a copy of the
source.
2. I then decide to distribute the program, or derivative work(s)
created from it, which means I have to accept the terms of one of the
offered versions of the GPL. At the moment that's just v2, because there
aren't any later versions available, so I go with v2.
3. When I distribute the program or derivative work(s), I also follow
the FSF recommendation by offering GPLv2 "or any later version".
4. Assume that at some point GPLv3 is made available, and further assume
that it imposes one or more restrictions on use, modification or
distribution which are not present in v2.
5. Someone obtains a copy of the program or derivative work(s) from me
and, noting the "any later version" offer, chooses to accept the terms
of GPLv3 when using, modifying or distributing it.

Now, I may be completely wrong, and indeed would love to be completely
wrong and to know why I'm completely wrong, but the impression I get is
that in item 5 above I have violated the terms of GPLv2 (Section 6), by
distributing the program or a derivative work with restrictions which
aren't present in GPLv2. The GPL FAQ isn't particularly helpful here;
its most relevant point is this:

> But if the new GPL version has a tighter requirement, it will not
> restrict use of the current version of the program, because it can
> still be used under GPL version 2. When a program says "Version 2 of
> the GPL or any later version", users will always be permitted to use 
> it, and even change it, according to the terms of GPL version 2--even
> after later versions of the GPL are available.

This merely points out the obvious, which is that people I distribute to
are still free to choose GPLv2 as an option, and doesn't really address
the question of whether it's allowable also to distribute the program
under a more restrictive GPL version. In effect, it seems to be hoping
that people I distribute the program to will always choose the less
restrictive v2.

And Section 9 of GPLv2 doesn't seem to me to deal with this either; it
simply implies what's stated in the FAQ item and only seems to address
the person receiving the program, not the person offering it.

Could someone with stronger license-fu than myself please shed some
light on this? I apologize if this has been brought up on this list at
some point, but I skimmed through the archive and didn't see anything
about it.


-- 
"May the forces of evil become confused on the way to your house."
  -- George Carlin
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20050815/c3fa04f1/attachment.sig>