| 1 |
On Tue, 05 Jan 2010 22:00:57 -0500 |
| 2 |
Vincent Launchbury <vincent@×××××××××××××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> But isn't this a problem with GPL-2 and 3 also? The term |
| 5 |
> GPL-compatible is too vague--which version is it referring to? For |
| 6 |
> example, see http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/ again: |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> Please note that GPLv2 is, by itself, not compatible with GPLv3. |
| 9 |
> However, most software released under GPLv2 allows you to use the |
| 10 |
> terms of later versions of the GPL as well. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> So doesn't it already assume that GPL-2 code contains the 'later |
| 13 |
> version' option? |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
No, it just says most GPL-2 software was released with the "version 2 or |
| 16 |
later" clause, as in "This software is released under the GPL version 2 |
| 17 |
or later". |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
That's a promise that any later version will do for /this/ software, not |
| 20 |
in any way a promise that whatever was released as GPL-2 can be |
| 21 |
redistributed as GPL-3. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
jer |
Archives