Re: GPLv2-only considered harmful [was Re: GnuTLS in Debian]
On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 8:54 AM, Clint Adams <clint@debian.org> wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 03:50:06AM +0100, David Weinehall wrote:
>> Apart from the termination clause, the GPLv2 is far more concise,
>> I don't see tivoization as a problem (it's the software I want to
>> protect, not anyone's combination of it with hardware), nor do I care
>> about compatibility with Apache 2.0 -- I do, however, care about
>> compatibility with GPL v2, which GPL v3 isn't.
>
> So your doomsday scenario is that if you license something
> GPLv2+, someone might fork and modify it to be GPLv3+,
I was under the impression that forks couldn't change licenses. Is the
scenario which Clint describes (legally) possible?
-mz
Reply to: