On 9/15/2010 4:59 PM, Richard Kenner wrote:
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:
I do not understand the difference between "redistributing a file
under a GPLv3-or-later license", and distributing it under a license
that is GPLv3-or-later".
Note that you can't necessarily even redistribute under GPL v3 if the
work does not meet the criteria for such a distribution, e.g. it is
Tivoized.
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.
Well of course not, when A distributes B to C under license D, it is A
who acquires the responsibility and obligations that acrue because of
the distribution.
