Hello Simon, I read over the GPLv2 several times while writing this e-mail. I believe distributions of GPLv2 source code with portions of code that are more restrictive than GPLv2 would be considered a violation of that same paragraph I quoted previously. The fact that they are in #ifdef blocks makes no difference. This is because a "work" can be considered both the source code and the resulting binary.
It is true that GPLv2 programs can be combined with programs with less restrictive licenses. However, GPLv3 is a more restrictive license than GPLv2 and therefore cannot be combined without making the entire work GPLv3. Laters, eviljoel On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 5:23 AM, Simon McVittie <smcv-ioqua...@pseudorandom.co.uk> wrote: > On Mon, 03 Jan 2011 at 17:07:56 -0600, eviljoel wrote: >> Maybe your e-mail reader does not support bolded text > > Good guess (it's mutt). > >> > 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. > > ioquake3 isn't GPLv2 (only) like Linux, though; it's GPLv2+ (as far as I > can see), which is shorthand for "GPLv2 or GPLv3 or hypothetical future GPLv4 > or...". > > It's valid to license parts of your source code under GPLv2+ and > parts of it under GPLv3, as long as the GPLv2+ parts aren't a derived work of > the GPLv3 parts (anything derived from the GPLv3 parts has to stay GPLv3). > > If Turtle Arena contains both GPLv2+ modules (from ioquake3) and GPLv3 modules > (from WolfET), then Turtle Arena *binaries* will be a derived work of both, so > the only option you can choose from the GPLv2+ multi-license is the GPLv3, > and you have to release binaries under the terms of the GPLv3. > > However, if other people want to re-use some of its code, they'll (presumably) > be working from the source code, not the binaries, and if they're only using > modules that allow GPLv2+, then they can choose to take the GPLv2 option. > > It's quite common for a single project to include some parts that are more > permissively licensed than others. For instance, GNOME and KDE projects > generally have a policy of licensing libraries under some version of the LGPL, > and applications/utilities (which might be shipped in the same tarball) under > some compatible version of the GPL. > > Simon > _______________________________________________ > 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.
