On Tue, 05 Jan 2010 22:00:57 -0500 Vincent Launchbury <vinc...@doublecreations.com> wrote:
> But isn't this a problem with GPL-2 and 3 also? The term > GPL-compatible is too vague--which version is it referring to? For > example, see http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/ again: > > Please note that GPLv2 is, by itself, not compatible with GPLv3. > However, most software released under GPLv2 allows you to use the > terms of later versions of the GPL as well. > > So doesn't it already assume that GPL-2 code contains the 'later > version' option? No, it just says most GPL-2 software was released with the "version 2 or later" clause, as in "This software is released under the GPL version 2 or later". That's a promise that any later version will do for /this/ software, not in any way a promise that whatever was released as GPL-2 can be redistributed as GPL-3. jer
