Re: GPLv2-only considered harmful [was Re: GnuTLS in Debian]
- To: debian-devel <debian-devel@lists.debian.org>
- Subject: Re: GPLv2-only considered harmful [was Re: GnuTLS in Debian]
- From: Luca Capello <luca@pca.it>
- Date: Sat, 04 Jan 2014 10:51:07 +0100
- Message-id: <[🔎] sa761q0oz1w.fsf@gismo.pca.it>
- In-reply-to: <[🔎] 20140104032902.GA13744@leliel.pault.ag> (Paul Tagliamonte's message of "Fri, 3 Jan 2014 22:29:02 -0500")
- References: <87a9fr5l3f.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <CANBHLUgmSLOX8xWZy8c0sovHQsX=e-4fdtvWm_wK76fYmL7E3g@mail.gmail.com> <87eh535m1v.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <20131223202411.GA10229@virgil.dodds.net> <20131223224354.GA9871@scru.org> <20131228084509.GA25664@hirohito.acc.umu.se> <20131228205356.GA17356@scru.org> <20131229025006.GB25664@hirohito.acc.umu.se> <20131231145450.GA20383@scru.org> <CAOLfK3UOxX+f0_Ca9LWE-n6p50y-cB4Gs683w6CvfqVYdW4Frg@mail.gmail.com> <[🔎] 20140104032902.GA13744@leliel.pault.ag>
Hi there!
On Sat, 04 Jan 2014 04:29:02 +0100, Paul Tagliamonte wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 08:59:53AM -0600, Matt Zagrabelny wrote:
>> > 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?
>
> I drew up this table a few weeks back when someone was misunderstanding
> the GPL combination stuff.
> /
> | HELPFUL GPL UPGRADE TABLE
Without checking in details Paul's table, upstream FAQ contains a
commented matrix where copying and usage are separate (as it should):
<http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#AllCompatibility>
Thx, bye,
Gismo / Luca
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Reply to: