On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 16:50:39 +0100 Måns Rullgård wrote:
> If, one might argue, the author wishes for the terms to remain those
> of the GPLv2, why does he not remove the "or any later version"
> option? The answer is simple. Such a license is not compatible with
> the standard GPL (with the "upgrade" option), since it has "further
> restrictions", compared to the version allowing a switch to a later
> version.
I don't think so.
"GPLv2 only" is compatible with "GPLv2 or later".
You can take work W_1 under "GPLv2 only" and work W_2 under "GPLv2 or
later", combine them into derivative work W_d and distribute W_d under
"GPLv2 only".
You received W_2 under "GPLv2" or "GPLv3" or ... at your option and you
simply chose "GPLv2" (rather than all of them!); then you combined two
GPLv2-licensed works into one derivative and complied with both
instances of GPLv2, by releasing W_d source code under the GPLv2 itself,
not adding further restrictions, and so forth...
--
Today is the tomorrow you worried about yesterday.
......................................................................
Francesco Poli GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4
Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
Attachment:
pgpCFUCATa4E9.pgp
Description: PGP signature