| 1 |
Jeroen Roovers wrote: |
| 2 |
> No, it just says most GPL-2 software was released with the "version 2 or |
| 3 |
> later" clause, as in "This software is released under the GPL version 2 |
| 4 |
> or later". |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> That's a promise that any later version will do for /this/ software, not |
| 7 |
> in any way a promise that whatever was released as GPL-2 can be |
| 8 |
> redistributed as GPL-3. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
Sorry, I should have been more clear. I meant, doesn't the |
| 11 |
GPL-COMPATIBLE license group assume that GPl-2 is v2+? If an ebuild is |
| 12 |
listed as GPL-2, but it's version 2 only, then surely it isn't |
| 13 |
GPL-compatible, because it's incompatible with GPL-3. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
> Of course you can sell the software (as long as you distribute the [perhaps] |
| 16 |
>derivative sources), you just can't /license/ it for money. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
>Please look into the legal verbiage - you seem incredibly confused as to what |
| 19 |
>it all means and you're confusing the matter even more for others. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Thanks for clearing that up. If that's the case, then isn't GPL-1 in the |
| 22 |
same boat as GPL-2? As they are both incompatible with GPL-3 if the "or |
| 23 |
any later version" clause isn't included. |
Archives