[arch-general] [arch-dev-public] licenses: GPL permutations
aaronmgriffin at gmail.com
Mon Mar 31 12:24:47 EDT 2008
On Sun, Mar 30, 2008 at 1:53 PM, Loui <louipc.ist at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Mar 2008 16:32:54 +0100
> "Raeven Bathory" <raeven.bathory at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Loui <louipc.ist at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > "Roman Kyrylych" <roman.kyrylych at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > GPL2 "or, at your opinion, any later version" is not the same as GPL2
> > > > only + GPL3 or later. ;)
> > > >
> > >
> > > Can you explain why they are not the same? I don't quite
> > > understand why that doesn't work. Thanks.
> > >
> > http://gplv3.fsf.org/wiki/index.php/Compatible_licenses#GPLv3-incompatible_licenses
> Yes, I already understood that GPL2 and GPL3 are incompatible but that
> doesn't mean a project can't license under both terms.
> If you own the code you can do whatever the hell you want.
> That's why you have some projects that have dual open licensing and
> commercial licensing.
> Your link doesn't do anything to explain why (GPL2 or later, GPL3)
> is practically any different than (GPL2, GPL3)
> Am I missing anything? Please let me know.
Man, I'm the first one to admit that arguing semantics is awesome, but
don't you think we're getting WAY to picky here?
Read the GPL2. It actually says somewhere in there that it scales up
to newer versions of the license at the behest of the author.
More information about the arch-general