Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1030385AbWI2HTR (ORCPT ); Fri, 29 Sep 2006 03:19:17 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1030398AbWI2HTR (ORCPT ); Fri, 29 Sep 2006 03:19:17 -0400 Received: from mail1.webmaster.com ([216.152.64.169]:35593 "EHLO mail1.webmaster.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1030385AbWI2HTQ (ORCPT ); Fri, 29 Sep 2006 03:19:16 -0400 From: "David Schwartz" To: "Linux-Kernel@Vger. Kernel. Org" Subject: RE: GPLv3 Position Statement Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2006 00:18:56 -0700 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2962 Importance: Normal X-Authenticated-Sender: joelkatz@webmaster.com X-Spam-Processed: mail1.webmaster.com, Fri, 29 Sep 2006 00:21:42 -0800 (not processed: message from trusted or authenticated source) X-MDRemoteIP: 206.171.168.138 X-Return-Path: davids@webmaster.com X-MDaemon-Deliver-To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Reply-To: davids@webmaster.com X-MDAV-Processed: mail1.webmaster.com, Fri, 29 Sep 2006 00:21:43 -0800 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1796 Lines: 43 > So what would happen if I add an essential GPL2-only file to a "GPL2 > or later" project? The files would have to act as a license boundary. Otherwise, it would be GPL2 only. (However, I think people could reasonably assume that if someone contributed to a GPL2 or later project, they intended their work to be licensed the same as the 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? GPL2. If you combine dual licensed code with GPLv2 code, the result must be GPLv2. > (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. I still don't see how it can take over, unless the FSF fixes the "bug" in GPLv3. GPLv2 does not permit such takeover, and unless GPLv3 is amended to do so, such a takeover is prohibited. I could be in error, I haven't looked closely enough. But if I'm right, I presume the FSF will be tipped off by someone and fix it. If anyone from the FSF is listening, you need to add a clause to GPLv3 permitting you to modify any project licensed under both the GPLv3 and another license such non-GPL and/or earlier-GPL licenses can be removed. Otherwise, no 'GPLv2 or later' project can become 'GPLv3 or later'. (Unless that's intentional.) 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/