Re: Does the "GPL version choice" impact GPL-compatibility?
* Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org> [040826 00:47]:
> It seems like an added restriction; "version 2" implies "no upgrades
> allowed". It would allow a third party to prevent his modifications
> from being used in the original work, if the original authors want to
> maintain "or any later version", by not granting that permission in his
> modifications (which is exactly something GPL#6 seeks to prevent).
>
> If not, it's worse: GPL software, under a canonical interpretation, would
> be incompatible with other GPL software due to differently exercised
> license options. As many people do, in fact, omit "or any later version",
> it would probably be a real-world problem.
Well, that is not what is meant when one talks of "incompatible"
licenses. When you make a 3-clause BSD program, I can make a modified
version incorporating GPL-code and put the whole under GPL. Then if
you want to include this modifications into your versions you have to
choose the GPL. But still shortened BSD and GPL are not incompatible.
It is true people wanting to have the option of "any later version"
have to be careful, what they include. But that is simply the small
brother of wanting the option to release under every (free) license,
by demanding copyright assignment before putting it in the upstream
version.
Many people omitting "or any later version" may cause problems with
some GPLv3 when comming, but looking as the GFDL disaster, I also
always think twice before putting code under this terms...
Hochachtungsvoll,
Bernhard R. Link
Reply to: