Re: Does the "GPL version choice" impact GPL-compatibility?
Dropped licensing@gnu.org from the CC ...
On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 10:13:58AM +0200, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> * 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.
Two programs' licenses are incompatible if you can't combine them and
distribute the result. If Raul's interpretation of the GPL is correct
(the second alternative above), then a "GPL v2" program would be incompatible
with a "GPL v2 or later" program--combining the two would render the
result completely undistributable. If not (the first alternative),
then it's a compatible license: you can combine them and distribute the
result while obeying both licenses.
--
Glenn Maynard
Reply to: