Re: GPL "+" question
Paul Tagliamonte <email@example.com> writes:
> No, you may redistribute it under different terms, *not* relicense. You may
> *use* GPLv2+ as GPLv3+, *BUT* the original work is *STILL* GPLv2+, since
> you can't relicense works.
Sorry, but I still think "release under the terms of the General Public
License v3+" means that the file has the license GPLv3+.
> To relicense implies you hold copyright, since only the copyright
> holder can license their works, even copylefted works.
Again: please provide a reference for this. The copyright holder has
surely the initial right to license his work, but I don't see a reason
why he can't transfer this.
It is also wrong for the "changed" case that we have: If only the
copyright holder (Mark Calabretta) had the right to change the license,
then the files in question could not have been modified and distributed
under the GPL-3+ license by the upstream author (Emmanuel Bertin) --
since even the modified files are still copyrighted by Mark, so the
Emmanuel alone could not change their license. This is, however, against
the idea of the "+" in the GPL versions.
Therefore, please show a proof that only the copyright holder can change