On Sat, 2010-03-06 at 10:53 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: > Le Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 08:09:45PM -0500, Adam C Powell IV a écrit : > > * The statement that the copyright license is not a trademark > > license is not in conflict with the GPL, and explicitly stated > > as an option in GPL-3. I don't think anyone believes GPL-3 is > > incompatible with GPL-2... > > Dear Adam, > > I have not followed the issue so I can not help you to solve it, however > I just would like to correct one thing that you wrote above: the GPLs > version 2 and 3 are incompatible. You can find more detailed explanations > on the FSF website: > > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#v2v3Compatibility D'oh! Forgot about that. I was thinking some of the patent clauses might break compatibility, I guess there are multiple v3 restrictions which do so... But the criterion remains: an incompatible license is one which imposes additional restrictions beyond the GPL. That's regardless of whether a license claims to be compatible or not. > Have a nice week-end, Thanks, you too! -Adam -- GPG fingerprint: D54D 1AEE B11C CE9B A02B C5DD 526F 01E8 564E E4B6 Engineering consulting with open source tools http://www.opennovation.com/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part