>
>And the GPLv2 and GPLv3 really _are_ mutually incompatible. There is
>absolutely nothing in the GPLv2 that is inherently compatible with the
>GPLv3, and the _only_ way you can mix code is if you explicitly
>dual-license it.
>
>Ie, GPLv2 and GPLv3 are compatible only the same way GPLv2 is compatible
>with a commercial proprietary license: they are compatible only if you
>release the code under a dual license.
>
>The whole "or later" phrase is legally _no_ different at all from a dual
>licensing (it's just more open-ended, and you don't know what the "or
>later" will be, so you're basically saying that you trust the FSF
>implicitly).
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?
(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.
Thanks for the clarification (though I know we're all IANALs.)
Jan Engelhardt
--
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
