[lkml]   [2006]   [Sep]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: GPLv3 Position Statement

    On Fri, 29 Sep 2006, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
    > 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?

    The final is always the most restricted license (or put another way: it's
    the "biggest possible license that can be used for everything", but in
    practice it means that non-restrictive licenses always lose out to their
    more restrictive brethren).

    This is, btw, why BSD code combined with GPL code is always GPL, and never
    the other way. It's not a "vote" depending on which one has more code. And
    it's not a mixture.

    The GPLv2 is very much designed to always be the most restricted license
    in any combination - because the license says that you cannot add any
    restrictions (so if there _was_ a more restricted license, it would no
    longer be compatible with the GPLv2, and you couldn't mix them at all in
    the first place).

    So any time you have a valid combination of licenses, if anything is
    "GPLv2 only", the final end result is inevitably "GPLv2 only".

    [ Btw, the same is true of the GPLv3 - very much by design in both cases.
    This is why you can _never_ combine a "GPLv2" work with a "GPLv3" work.

    They simply aren't compatible. One or both must accept the others
    license restrictions, and since neither does, and the restrictions
    aren't identical, there is no way to turn one into the other, or turn
    them both into a wholly new "mixed" license.

    So this is why the _only_ way you can mix GPLv2 and GPLv3 code is if the
    code was dual-licensed, ie we have the "v2 or later" kind of situation. ]

    Basic rule: licenses are compatible only if they are strict subsets of
    each other, and you can only ever take rights _away_ when you relicense
    something. You can never add rights - if you didn't get those rights in
    the first place with the original license, they're simply not yours to

    Otherwise, we could all buy the latest CD albums, and then relicense them
    with more rights than you got (or we could take GPLv3 code and remove the
    restrictions, and relicense it as BSD).

    So the reason you can't re-license the CD albums is that you don't even
    have any license to re-distribute them at all, and as such there is
    nothing for you to sublicense further. And the reason you cannot relicense
    the GPLv2 is that it tells you that you can't add any new restrictions
    when you re-distribute anything, and you obviously can't add any rights
    that you didn't have.

    And, as usual: IANAL. But none of this is really even remotely

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2009-11-18 23:46    [W:0.022 / U:7.768 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site