On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 02:16:28PM -0700, Andrew Lentvorski wrote:
And what would you call a GPLv2 that required "or any later version"? Is it still a GPLv2? What would the law say?
The GPLv2 can't require "any later version". You're confusing the copyright/license statement in the source file with the license text. A given source can be licensed under various different license. Some files in the kernel are multiple licensed, say a BSD license, as well as GPLv2. Other files in the kernel are GPLv2 or later, and some are GPLv2 only. The only constraint to being able to pull the whole thing together into the kernel is that you are using the GPLv2, however each given file allows you to do that. If I write a piece of code entirely myself, I can choose whatever license terms I wish. I could choose GPLv2, GPLv2 or later, BSD or GPLv2, and even mutually incompatible licenses (although a given use will only get to choose one). I'm not changing the GPLv2 if I choose to allow other licenses as well. Remember, if you take advantage of the "or later" part to use the code in a GPLv3, the result is no longer GPLv2.
Words and law are not computers. They rarely have clear, obviously correct answers.
No, but this one is actually fairly clear.
As I said, I don't particularly care, nor am I interested in arguing hypotheticals. The FSF decided to cross the bridge with significant modifications in the GPLv3.
It is far from hypothetical... David -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
