On Sep 10, 2010, at 11:06 AM, Richard Kenner wrote: >>> I thought the point is that Apple WON'T go to GPLv3. >> >> The Apple distributions are GPLv2 or later, meaning if someone wanted to >> take that code and distribute it under then GPLv3, they could. > > The fact that the licenses are COMPATIBLE doesn't make them IDENTICAL. > FSF wants "GPLv3 or later" and it's not at all clear to me that we could > change the license of code that's not copyright assigned to FSF to that > license (we can for code that HAS been assigned).
The code in the apple branch on the fsf server *is* copyright assigned to the FSF. -Chris
