Re: Bug#431109: [PROPOSAL] Disambiguate of Section 12.5, Deprecate GPL/LGPL symlinks
- To: email@example.com
- Subject: Re: Bug#431109: [PROPOSAL] Disambiguate of Section 12.5, Deprecate GPL/LGPL symlinks
- From: "Anthony W. Youngman" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2007 21:37:33 +0100
- Message-id: <ylZC0EUNIWiGFwWQ@thewolery.demon.co.uk>
- In-reply-to: <email@example.com>
- References: <20070629193137.31108.55438.reportbug@aragorn> <None.LNX.firstname.lastname@example.org> <20070629220318.GA3168@aragorn> <None.LNX.email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
In message <email@example.com>, Florian Weimer
* Santiago Vila:
+ file. Packages should not refer to GPL and LGPL symlinks in
+ that directory since different, incompatible versions of these
+ licenses have been published by the Free Software Foundation,
+ hence using the symlinks could lead to ambiguity.
I disagree with this. It should be ok to point to the latest version
of the GPL if the program says "Version X or later". Many programs
do that, and we should not need to change them.
But do we really want to license everything which is "GPL version 2 or
later" under the GPL version 3?
Actually, YOU CAN'T.
The only person who can CHANGE the licence is the person who owns the
The recipient has the right to use code placed under a "v2 or later"
licence AS IF it was under v3 - they do not have the right to re-licence
it under v3.
I think you need to, though, because they ARE two DIFFERENT licencing
criteria, and you do NOT have the right to change them.
And how do we discriminate between "GPL version 2 or later" and "GPL
version 3 or later"?
Anthony W. Youngman - firstname.lastname@example.org