On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 08:38:09PM -0500, Stephen M. Webb wrote: > On 12/28/2013 07:51 PM, Kurt Roeckx wrote: > > The "or later" means "or later" and just that. It doesn't mean > > a downstream can say they received it under the later version. > > And the upstream can't claim that either. > The "or later" means my clients' lawyers state unequivocally that they > will not accept GPLv2+ software, but GPLv2-only is completely acceptable. > This is not an isolated incident. Perhaps it's not an isolated incident, but if that's really what those lawyers claim, then they are mistaken. If someone receives a work under the terms "GPLv2 or later", then they are free to comply with the license by fulfilling the terms of GPLv2 *or* GPLv3, *whichever they choose*. That includes when they redistribute it, include it in products, etc.; and no one downstream of them (or upstream of them) has any right to demand that the distributor comply with the terms of GPLv3 instead of GPLv2. Now, the companies in question may legitimately regard a GPLv2+ upstream as a source business risk, because they have no guarantee that future versions of the software won't be made available under GPLv3+ instead of GPLv2+, and if they're relying on being able to continue tracking upstream, they may well choose to avoid this issue entirely by adhering to a strict "GPLv2 only" policy. But that doesn't mean that GPLv2+ imposes any requirements on them *per se* that GPLv2 does not. > As a corollary, that may also be why the company that employs me insists > on GPLv3-only licensing by default. To make those clients unhappy? ;) -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ slangasek@ubuntu.com vorlon@debian.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature