On 04/01/2011 19:33, Gary Briggs wrote: > On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 05:40:08PM -0600, eviljoel wrote: >> Hello Zack, >> >> I think your only option is to convert the ioquake3 code to GPLv3. Of >> course, if you own the copyright to the GPLv3 code in question you can >> always dual license it as GPLv2, but it sounds like Id owns the >> copyright in this case. >> >> Yeah, rewriting the code from scratch or using someone else's GPLv2 >> code is also a valid option. >> >> I personally like the GPLv3. I really wish we would all just move to that. > > You have all the pieces here, but you haven't put them together: > > 1) ID owns the copyright on their code. > 2) The copyright owner [ID] has specifically chosen a license under > which the code is to be distributed: GPLv2+ > 3) You don't get to change the license to "GPLv3" when the copyright > owner has specifically chosen the license "GPLv2+".
The copyright owner has decided to release the code and given us free choice to use any version of the GPL starting with 2. I.e. you can create a copy of the code and license it under GPLv2 or GPLv3 oder stay with GPLv2+ or change it to GPLv3+. The "or later" clause is quite common and this is the first time I have seen it disputed. I really wonder where this notion comes from. _______________________________________________ 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.
