Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > 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.]
Indeed, "available under GPL v2" is positive only -- it doesn't indicate that it's *not* available under GPL v3 or the BSD license or something else > 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. Only in two very specific circumstances: if you received the work with "or any later version," or if no version number was specified at all. What makes you think it's general? -Brian -- Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
