Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 29 Sep 2006 08:08:58 +0200 (MEST) | From | Jan Engelhardt <> | Subject | Re: GPLv3 Position Statement |
| |
> >And the GPLv2 and GPLv3 really _are_ mutually incompatible. There is >absolutely nothing in the GPLv2 that is inherently compatible with the >GPLv3, and the _only_ way you can mix code is if you explicitly >dual-license it. > >Ie, GPLv2 and GPLv3 are compatible only the same way GPLv2 is compatible >with a commercial proprietary license: they are compatible only if you >release the code under a dual license. > >The whole "or later" phrase is legally _no_ different at all from a dual >licensing (it's just more open-ended, and you don't know what the "or >later" will be, so you're basically saying that you trust the FSF >implicitly).
So what would happen if I add an essential GPL2-only file to a "GPL2 or later" project? Let's recall, a proprietary program that combines/derives with GPL code makes the final binary GPL (and hence the source, etc. and whatnot, don't stretch it). Question: The Linux kernel does have GPL2 and GPL2+later combined, what does this make the final binary?
(Maybe you implicitly answered it by this already, please indicate): >Exactly. The GPLv3 can _only_ take over a GPLv2 project if the "or later" >exists. From that I'd say it remains GPL2 only.
Thanks for the clarification (though I know we're all IANALs.)
Jan Engelhardt -- - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |