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

Re: Artistic and LGPL compatibility in jar files

In message <[🔎] e15688105c664a6bde658d2ac687ad82.cherepan@mccme.ru>, Alexander Cherepanov <cherepan@mccme.ru> writes
Your recipients also get *my* grant, so any one of
them can say "actually, I like v *2* so I'll take that as my licence".

Why do you think that my recipients will get your entire grant? GPLv3
only says that they will get your grant for _this_ License, i.e. GPLv3.

WHERE does it say that?

But in that case, as soon as you distribute my code using GPL2 as your licence, YOU have STOPPED them distributing under version 3! That argument cuts both ways!

Actually, that then totally destroys the whole point of "v3 or later" if you choosing v3 takes away your recipients rights to choose according to the original author's grant!

I've just checked v3, and it contains the same "gets your licence from the original licensor" wording as v2, so they get their grant from me, and you don't have the right (or ability) to change what I grant.

At the end of the day, YOU need a licence to distribute my code. My grant gives you a choice of v2 or v3. Whether you choose v2 or v3, your recipient then gets the same grant as you did, and they can also choose v2 or v3. If your choice of v3 took away your recipients choice of v2 I would consider that a VERY retrograde step.

But at the end of the day, it's simple. If I say "v2 or v3" then I granted EVERY recipient of my code the right to *choose*. Both v2 and v3 are explicit that your recipients get their rights from ME not you, so your choice of v3 does not constrain their right to choose.

Anthony W. Youngman - anthony@thewolery.demon.co.uk

Reply to: