On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 08:59:53AM -0600, Matt Zagrabelny wrote: > On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 8:54 AM, Clint Adams <cl...@debian.org> wrote: > > On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 03:50:06AM +0100, David Weinehall wrote: > >> Apart from the termination clause, the GPLv2 is far more concise, > >> I don't see tivoization as a problem (it's the software I want to > >> protect, not anyone's combination of it with hardware), nor do I care > >> about compatibility with Apache 2.0 -- I do, however, care about > >> compatibility with GPL v2, which GPL v3 isn't. > > > > So your doomsday scenario is that if you license something > > GPLv2+, someone might fork and modify it to be GPLv3+, > > I was under the impression that forks couldn't change licenses. Is the > scenario which Clint describes (legally) possible?
The boilerplate says: "you can redistribute it and/or modify it [...] either version X of the License, or (at your option) any later version." As I understand it, assuming X is 2, this means I can redistribute this under 2, 2+, 3, 3+ without needing any persmissions from the copyright holder because they already said I can redistribute and modify it under "2 or later". But people of course aren't going to be interested in my version just because I change the license, but they might if I make some changes under this new license. Please note that that doesn't mean that if I get something from someone and it says "2 or later" that I can say I received it under 3. I received the 2 version, but I can change it to 3 if I wanted to. Kurt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20131231154839.ga17...@roeckx.be
