[TriLUG] GPLv3 -- What do you think?
rick.denatale at gmail.com
Wed Mar 15 13:47:36 EST 2006
On 3/15/06, Tanner Lovelace <clubjuggler at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/15/06, Joseph Tate <dragonstrider at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Um, the GPL itself in paragraph 9 allows the user (not the
> > contributors) to use any "later" version of the gpl, so getting the
> > contributors to agree is irrelevant. Code authors restricting the
> > license to v2.0 is impossible. That's my reading however, and the
> > standard disclaimers apply.
> Only if you include paragraph 9 in the license you release your
> software under. From what I understand, this is what Linus has
> done with his contributions to the kernel. Other contributors may
> or may not have done the same, leading to a very interesting
> situation where parts of the kernel may be licensable under GPLv3
> and other parts may not be.
Actually the GPL requires that it be unchanged.
HOWEVER - you need to read a license/contract as if it were written in
a programming language, complete with constructions like if-then-else.
The actual license is part of the source code, and incorporates a GPL
license by reference. GPL v2 says that IF the program specifies that
it is licensed under GPL v.2 OR ANY LATER LICENSE then newer licences
apply (actually that the user can choose which license to follow).
The COPYING file in the linux kernel sources is the actual license,
and states that the license version is GPL v.2. and GPL v.2 alone.
Indeed even if it didn't and just contained GPL v.2 it would have the
same effect since it doesn't EXPLICITLY state that later versions may
be used which is what the language in the license requires. Lacking
that statement it's pretty clear that the default is that only the
particular version applies.
Visit the Project Mercury Wiki Site
More information about the TriLUG