Re: Linux and GPLv2
Francesco Poli <frx@firenze.linux.it> writes:
> 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...
On second thoughts, you seem to be right, fortunately. The "no
further restrictions" must be as compared to the actual license text
(the COPYING file), not the note at the top of the source files.
--
Måns Rullgård
mru@inprovide.com
Reply to: