From: "David Schwartz" <davids@webmaster.com>
To: "Linux-Kernel@Vger. Kernel. Org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: GPLv3 Position Statement
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2006 19:29:55 -0700
Message-ID: <MDEHLPKNGKAHNMBLJOLKCENGOLAB.davids@webmaster.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In-Reply-To: <20060928144028.GA21814@wohnheim.fh-wedel.de>
Importance: Normal
Reply-To: davids@webmaster.com
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1273
Lines: 28


> In my very uninformed opinion, your problem is a very minor one.  Your
> "v2 or later" code won't get the license v2 removed, it will become
> dual "v2 or v3" licensed.  And assuming that v3 only adds restrictions
> and doesn't allow the licensee any additional rights, you, as the
> author, shouldn't have to worry much.
>
> The problem arises later.  As with BSD/GPL dual licensed code, where
> anyone can take the code and relicense it as either BSD or GPL, "v2 or
> v3" code can get relicensed as v3 only.  At this point, nothing is
> lost, as the identical "v2 or v3" code still exists.  But with further
> development on the "v3 only" branch, you have a fork.  And one that
> doesn't just require technical means to get merged back, but has legal
> restrictions.

Unless I'm missing something, you *cannot* change the license from "v2 or
later at your option" to "v3 or later". Both GPLv2 and GPLv3 explicitly
prohibit modifying license notices. (Did the FSF goof big time? It's not too
late to change the draft.)

DS


-
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/