Re: GPL v2/v3 ?
On Sat, Mar 08, 2008 at 12:36:40AM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Mar 2008 23:54:15 +0100 Adam Borowski wrote:
> > What about a somewhat less paranoid option: GPL2+noA
> > (GPL v2 or any higher, except for licenses from the Affero branch).
>
> Do you mean "GNU GPL v2 or later" + "the prohibition to link/combine
> with GNU AfferoGPL v3"?
>
> That would not work as intended, I think.
>
> If I receive a work under that licensing scheme, I can choose between
> the following options:
> A) GPL v2 + "prohibition to link/combine with GNU AfferoGPL v3"
> B) GPL v3 + "prohibition to link/combine with GNU AfferoGPL v3"
> C) GPL vX + "prohibition to link/combine with GNU AfferoGPL v3"
> where X is greater than 3
Or, alternatively:
A) GPL v2 + _permission_ to link/combine with (otherwise incompatible) GPL
v>2 code other than AGPL (any version)
B) GPL v3 + permission ...
C) GPL vX + permission ...
The set of allowed actions is strictly greater than if the license was GPL
v2 only.
> The GNU GPL v2 does not include any permission to link/combine with GNU
> AfferoGPL v3, hence option A is equivalent to GPL v2.
> On the other hand, the prohibition to link/combine with GNU AfferoGPL
> v3 is a non-permissive additional term with respect to GPL v3. It is
> not listed in Section 7, subclauses (a) through (f); hence it is a
> "further restriction" from the GPL v3 point of view, and it may be
> removed as per Section 7. As a consequence, option B is equivalent to
> GPL v3.
I would say that the interactions of sections 13 and 14 are pretty unclear.
I'm not sure whether it's a restriction or selective extra permission. At
least, section 13 ("you may upgrade to AGPLv3") would trump 14 ("you may
upgrade to later versions if permitted") if its initial words didn't state
"Notwithstanding any other provision of this License". As it is, it's
unclear. Are we permitted to cherry pick later license versions, or are
"=X" and ">=X" the only options?
> The compatibility with the GNU AfferoGPL v3 would *not* be avoided.
Having a lot more knowledge than me, you're probably right -- but merely
stating your (the copyright holder's) wishes is worthy enough, even if it
doesn't give a sure position in a court.
--
1KB // Microsoft corollary to Hanlon's razor:
// Never attribute to stupidity what can be
// adequately explained by malice.
Reply to: