[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: proposed FAQ entries about licensing
From: |
Judd Storrs |
Subject: |
Re: proposed FAQ entries about licensing |
Date: |
Wed, 8 Apr 2009 11:00:55 -0400 |
> GPLv2 can be automatically promoted to GPLv3. So yes, you can
> distribute them, but they will be covered by GPLv3. Assuming they link
> to the newest interface, of course. Those linking to old interface may
> remain under GPLv2.
On its own, the FSF consideres the GPLv2 license to be incompatible
with the GPLv3. GPL license compatibility is a mess. See
http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#AllCompatibility
Only if the software is licensed as GPLv2 or "any later version" can
it be promoted to v3 and included with GPLv3 software.
There are a number of projects that are specifically "GPLv2 only" and
therefore incompatible with GPLv3. Such as the linux kernel and FLTK.
--judd
- Re: proposed FAQ entries about licensing, (continued)
- Re: proposed FAQ entries about licensing, David Bateman, 2009/04/21
- Re: proposed FAQ entries about licensing, Judd Storrs, 2009/04/21
- Re: proposed FAQ entries about licensing, David Bateman, 2009/04/08
- Re: proposed FAQ entries about licensing, Judd Storrs, 2009/04/08
- Re: proposed FAQ entries about licensing, John W. Eaton, 2009/04/08
- Re: proposed FAQ entries about licensing, John W. Eaton, 2009/04/08
Re: proposed FAQ entries about licensing, Judd Storrs, 2009/04/07
Re: proposed FAQ entries about licensing, John W. Eaton, 2009/04/08
Re: proposed FAQ entries about licensing, Judd Storrs, 2009/04/08
Re: proposed FAQ entries about licensing, Judd Storrs, 2009/04/08
Re: proposed FAQ entries about licensing, John W. Eaton, 2009/04/08
Re: proposed FAQ entries about licensing, Judd Storrs, 2009/04/08
Re: proposed FAQ entries about licensing, John W. Eaton, 2009/04/08
Re: proposed FAQ entries about licensing, Judd Storrs, 2009/04/08
Re: proposed FAQ entries about licensing, John W. Eaton, 2009/04/08