Hello Simon, Maybe your e-mail reader does not support bolded text, but it was quite clear that Patrick was referring to this line: "If the Program does not specify a version number of this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation."
This line does not apply because the source specifies the license as GPLv2 (or at your option, any later version). Everything else you said was correct except this paragraph: > If Zack wants to let developers who insist on GPLv2 re-use modules from his > engine, one way to do it would be to isolate WolfET-derived code into > particular files, so all the other files can remain GPLv2+... This is a violation of the GPLv2 because the GPLv3 components cannot be distributed under the same terms of the GPLv2. The following excerpt from the GPLv2 explains this violation: "These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. ... But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it." Laters, eviljoel On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 11:01 AM, Simon McVittie <smcv-ioqua...@pseudorandom.co.uk> wrote: > On Thu, 30 Dec 2010 at 17:41:28 -0600, eviljoel wrote: >> ioquake3 is explicitly licensed as GPLv2. Thus, the clause you >> mentioned does not apply. > > Really? I picked a few random files (cl_main.c, qal.c, sv_snapshot.c, > ui_shared.c, be_aas_reach.c) and they all seem to be marked as GPLv2+, i.e. > GPLv2 with the "any later version" clause. > > If this is the case for the whole engine, then Zack is free to use the Q3 > source files under GPLv3, but any modules where Q3 and WolfET-derived code > have been combined will have to be GPLv3 (or perhaps GPLv3+, if WolfET's > license allows that). > > GPLv2+ is like a dual license, except that instead of just a pair of licenses > (MPL/GPL like Mozilla, for instance), it lets you choose GPLv2, GPLv3, any > (as yet hypothetical) future GPLv4, and so on. > > If Zack wants to let developers who insist on GPLv2 re-use modules from his > engine, one way to do it would be to isolate WolfET-derived code into > particular files, so all the other files can remain GPLv2+; another way > would be to commit bugfixes/new features that don't require the WolfET code > into a purely GPLv2+ project or branch. > > From my point of view that GPLv2+ project would ideally be ioquake3 itself, > although that relies on ioquake3 committers reviewing and merging things. > Talking of which, I have several patches from Debian's version of ioquake3 > awaiting review in the ioquake3 bugzilla, if anyone feels like reviewing > things :-) > > Regards, > smcv > _______________________________________________ > ioquake3 mailing list > ioquake3@lists.ioquake.org > http://lists.ioquake.org/listinfo.cgi/ioquake3-ioquake.org > By sending this message I agree to love ioquake3 and libsdl. > _______________________________________________ ioquake3 mailing list ioquake3@lists.ioquake.org http://lists.ioquake.org/listinfo.cgi/ioquake3-ioquake.org By sending this message I agree to love ioquake3 and libsdl.
