> FYI, quoting Brett Smith on this issue (with permission) below. > > When the copyright holder of a program gives you permission to > "redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General > Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either > version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version," they > have given you permission to distribute it under the terms of any one or > more of the licenses specified.
I don't mean to keep this thread alive longer, but that answer is not to the question we've been discussing. OF COURSE you can "redistribute" a GPLv2-or-later file under GPLv3-or-later. That's never been the question! The question is whether you can RELICENSE a GPLv2-or-later file to be GPLv3-or-later without needing explicit permission of the copyright holder. To understand the difference, note that: > Also note that just because you receive a work under GPLv2-or-later and > distribute it under GPLv3-or-later doesn't necessarily mean that the > previous distributor has new obligations. For example, if you get some > GPLv2-or-later source from a distributor that has a tivoized product, > you can't distribute that source under GPLv3-or-later and then turn > around and ask the previous distributor for Installation Information. > They're only on the hook to meet the conditions in one of the licenses > they chose, which in this case would be GPLv2.
