30 Jan
2011
30 Jan
'11
12:53 a.m.
On Saturday 29 January 2011 22:42:16 Arnold Krille wrote:
You are right. Redistributing code from "gpl2 or any later" can happen
under gpl3 or any later. Now what about redistributing it under "gpl3
only"?
Stupid me, of course one can relicense it under "gpl3 only"... "gpl2 or
later"
includes redistribution with "gplX or later" and "gplX only" with
X>=2.
Off to bed,
Arnold
On Saturday 29 January 2011 21:52:06 Jeremy Salwen
wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 1:14 PM, Arnold Krille <arnold(a)arnoldarts.de>
wrote:
Oh, changing the license without the permission from
all
copyright-holders is
the same kind of crime and results in the same penalties. Regardless
whether
you switch from "gpl2 or any later" to "gpl3 only" or from "gpl2
or
later" to
"gpl3 or later" or even from "gpl2 or later" to "gpl2"...
Actually, I'm pretty sure that the exact opposite is true. When you
distribute "under the terms of the GPL2 or later", that means I can
accept your program under the terms of the GPL3. The terms of the GPL3
say that I can modify it and redistribute it under the GPL3. Similarly
for the GPL2. Notice the language says "*or* later", not "*and*
later".
I get to choose which license I agree to. Otherwise, it would be
pointless to even offer it under the "GPL 2 or later" because I would
*have* to distribute it under the GPL3, which places further
restrictions on top of the GPL2, meaning that it would effectively be
under the GPL3 no matter what.