-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 05/28/2014 12:22 PM, Tim Flink wrote: > I'm working on a project that's currently gpl2+ licensed [1] and > we want to include some code from a gpl3 project [2]. This code > will be an isolated utility used to generate documentation from > data contained in other source files. > > [1] https://bitbucket.org/fedoraqa/libtaskotron [2] > https://github.com/ansible/ansible > > I know that if we went forward with this, the project would need to > be distributed as gpl3 but I have some questions around the > specifics: > > Would all the source in our project need to be re-licensed as gpl3 > or is it sufficient to have the project license as gpl3 and the > existing source files as gpl2+? > > Assuming that it is possible to keep the existing gpl2+ source as > gpl2+, would it be possible to change the project license back to > gpl2+ in the future if we were to remove any gpl3 code?
== DISCLAIMER == IANAL, this is not legal advice. == /DISCLAIMER == You would not need to re-license existing source from GPLv2+. The effective license on the compiled binary works would be GPLv3 in the scenario you describe. If you removed the GPLv3 code (or the code was relicensed to GPLv2+), then the resulting binary license would be GPLv2+. By adding the GPLv3 code, you're just forcing the "+" to trigger to GPLv3 in the combined binary work. The individual source files are still a mix. ~tom == ¸.·´¯`·.´¯`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸><(((º> OSAS @ Red Hat University Outreach || Fedora Special Projects || Fedora Legal -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iEYEARECAAYFAlOGGZoACgkQPF6ZrZMFQmCfAwCeI4MpZjieMLPmFLWQGfpeKAns nRgAn3a/pSl6Msn6urjVoDNniBNudFo7 =adyu -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
<<attachment: tcallawa.vcf>>
_______________________________________________ legal mailing list [email protected] https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/legal
