RE: GPLv3 Position Statement

[Neil Brown]

On Thursday September 28, davids@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> 
> > In my very uninformed opinion, your problem is a very minor one.  Your
> > "v2 or later" code won't get the license v2 removed, it will become
> > dual "v2 or v3" licensed.  And assuming that v3 only adds restrictions
> > and doesn't allow the licensee any additional rights, you, as the
> > author, shouldn't have to worry much.
> >
> > The problem arises later.  As with BSD/GPL dual licensed code, where
> > anyone can take the code and relicense it as either BSD or GPL, "v2 or
> > v3" code can get relicensed as v3 only.  At this point, nothing is
> > lost, as the identical "v2 or v3" code still exists.  But with further
> > development on the "v3 only" branch, you have a fork.  And one that
> > doesn't just require technical means to get merged back, but has legal
> > restrictions.
> 
> Unless I'm missing something, you *cannot* change the license from "v2 or
> later at your option" to "v3 or later". Both GPLv2 and GPLv3 explicitly
> prohibit modifying license notices. (Did the FSF goof big time? It's not too
> late to change the draft.)

Could you point to the test in either license that prohibits modifying
license notices?
I certainly couldn't find it in section 2 of GPLv2, which seems to be
the relevant section.

Interestingly, 2.b seem to say that if I received a program under
GPLv2, and I pass it on, then I must pass it on under GPLv2-only...
So to be able to distribute something written today under GPLv3 (when
it comes into existence), you must be the original or have received it
directly from the original author....

NeilBrown
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/