[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: GPL v2/v3 ?

2008/3/5, Diggory Hardy <diggory.hardy@gmail.com>:

>  So, I was wondering if it makes the most sense to take a flexible approach and
>  release under "version 2 or later" of the GPL, albeit allowing problems with
>  either version of the license to be exploited, or be less flexible and
>  release under one version (possibly v2). I don't think compatibility with
>  other code's licenses is likely to be a problem either way.

It might be a potential problem to have a GPLv2 only license. In
Spain, for example, the latest intellectual property laws have made
the GPLv2 buggy [1] (or the other way round, the law might be buggy).

GPLv2 says: "Activities other than copying, distribution and
modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its

In the latest spanish law, distribution now legally means just using a
physical support [2]. Thus, GPLv2 might not be providing permission to
distribute it through non-physical means like the network. The latter
would be public communication instead, not distribution.

GPLv3 corrects this:

"To "propagate" a work means doing anything with it that requires
permission under applicable copyright law, except executing it on a
computer, or making modifications that you do not share. Propagation
includes copying, distribution (with or without modification), making
available to the public, and in some countries other activities as
well. To "convey" a work means any kind of propagation that enables
other parties to make or receive copies, excluding sublicensing."

I don't know if any other countries might have this problem too, but I
thought it might be informative to tell about it. I would recommend
you to go for GPLv2 or above.


(links in Spanish, sorry)
[1] http://derechoynormas.blogspot.com/2006/12/migracin-obligatoria-la-gpl-v3.html
[2] http://noticias.juridicas.com/base_datos/Admin/rdleg1-1996.l1t2.html#a18
[3] http://espana.barrapunto.com/article.pl?sid=06/12/18/1049234

Reply to: