On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 10:08:30PM +0100, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote: > Have you considered the consequences of your weird legal theory? > > Presumably the Linux kernel would be undistributable because it > contains both "GPL 2" and "GPL >=2" code.
Not if "GPL 2" indicates that GPL v2 applies and not meant to indicate that other versions do not apply. [Which is how I read section 9.] Of course a copyright that says "GPL v2 and no other versions of the GPL" would exclude other versions... > Also, the main reason for the "or any later version" stuff would > disappear. The purpose of this is to allow the FSF to correct bugs in > the GPL. If projects licensed under "GPL >=2" had to be licensed under > "GPL >=2" forever then it would not be possible to upgrade them to GPL > 3 by licensing new code under "GPL >=3". I disagree -- section 9 gives you the option of replacing GPL v2 with later versions. > Fortunately your interpretation of the GPL is not the standard one and > seems rather difficult to justify. Sure. Except, what you're calling my interpretation bears very little resemblance to what I think of as my interpretation. -- Raul
