Re: Artistic and LGPL compatibility in jar files
On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 01:24:36 +0000, "Anthony W. Youngman" <email@example.com> wrote:
>>Well, the GPL does allow relicensing to newer versions of the GPL...
> IT DOESN'T, ACTUALLY !!!
> 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
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.