* Joe Buck: > Doesn't matter, because the runtime library is not under GPLv3. It's > under GPLv3 plus the runtime restriction. That combination is more > permissive than GPLv2 (because of the exceptions it makes). Therefore, > as far as I can tell, there is no conflict; the combined program has > no restrictions beyond the GPLv2 restrictions.
I think it's unordered with respect to the GPLv2. > In particular, the DRM rules don't apply; the more restrictive rules > on patents don't apply. But if I change the run-time library, I still have to license those changes under the GPLv3 if I want to distribute them, right? For the library, all the additional GPLv3 restrictions apply if I modify it (such as the patent licensing rules, or the fundamental weakening of copyleft). I think that traditionally, such restrictions, even if concentrated to the code to which GPL software is linked, has been enough to make the code incompatible with the GPL. If this were not the case, the Apache License 2.0 would have been deemed compatible with the GPL version 2 because it explicitly mentions that its requirements do not apply to code linked to the library.
