>>>>> Richard Kenner writes:
Richard> Now, suppose I apply it to the GPLv2 version of the file. One could
argue
Richard> that such file is now GPLv3 and I think that'd be correct. But since
the
Richard> parts of the file being patched are identical, the patch is
indistinguishable
Richard> from one that's derived from GPLv2 text. This strikes me as a VERY
murky
Richard> legal areas.
I believe this scenario is exactly RMS's expectation if someone
other than the original author copies / backports a patch from a GPLv3
file.
David
