On 9/4/2014 4:56 AM, "Ola Fosheim Grøstad"
<ola.fosheim.grostad+dl...@gmail.com>" wrote:
On Sunday, 31 August 2014 at 09:23:28 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
Know what I really want to see? I wanna see some smart-ass make a GPL
program statically linking GPLv2 code with GPLv3 code. Then drift it
past the FSF's nose. I'd be fascinated to see what happens.
1. You can statically link GPL2 code with GPL3 code if you have received
the source code through proper channels. I think you are confusing GPL2
with Linux "GPL" which isn't GPL2.
I was just going by what Stallman said in the article linked to earlier:
"When we say that GPLv2 and GPLv3 are incompatible, it means there is no
legal way to combine code under GPLv2 with code under GPLv3 in a single
program. This is because both GPLv2 and GPLv3 are copyleft licenses:
each of them says, “If you include code under this license in a larger
program, the larger program must be under this license too.” There is no
way to make them compatible. We could add a GPLv2-compatibility clause
to GPLv3, but it wouldn't do the job, because GPLv2 would need a similar
clause."
- Richard Stallman: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/rms-why-gplv3.html
I think this thread, and every other discussion of GPL on the net,
demonstrate one of my earlier points: GPL is freaking confusing.
