> You're missing the point. Say EvilCo got hold of some GPL software,
> and managed to get the FSF to release a version 3 of the GPL which
> allowed them to make binary-only releases. You may still have "full rights"
> to the source released at the time, but EvilCo can still exercise the
> "or any later version" option, modify the source, and release binaries only.
That would be contradictory to the ninth clause of GPL-2:
9. The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new versions
of the General Public License from time to time. Such new versions will
be similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in detail to
address new problems or concerns.
Allowing binary-only distributions is certainly not 'similar in spirit to
the present version', and as such, the new GPL wouldn't be considered as a
GPL as far as GPL-2 is involved.
As far as I can tell.
Nimrod
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/