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

Re: Artistic and LGPL compatibility in jar files

Hi Anthony!
On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 01:24:36 +0000, "Anthony W. Youngman" <debian@thewolery.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>>Well, the GPL does allow relicensing to newer versions of the GPL...

> Read what the GPL says, CAREFULLY.
> Let's say I write a load of code, and release it with a notice saying
> "this code is licenced as 'GPL version 2 or later' ".

Typical dual-license scenario, good. Could you please elaborate some 
more how both licenses propagates in this case? This seems to be a 
very common notion but it's not clear to me.

> What this give YOU is the right to redistribute the code according to
> the terms of the GPL v3. BUT - READ THE GPL - the people to whom you
> give the code get their licence from ME, NOT YOU. 

Right, this is section 6 of GPLv2 of section 10 of GPLv3. Let's quote 
the latter:

    10. Automatic Licensing of Downstream Recipients.

    Each time you convey a covered work, the recipient automatically
  receives a license from the original licensors, to run, modify and
  propagate that work, subject to this License. [...]

> And I granted the licence as "v2 or later".

The text of the GPL says "subject to this License", i.e. GPLv3, not 
"subject to all Licenses". So I don't see how your conclusion follows.

Alexander Cherepanov

Reply to: