On 07/07/12 06:10, David Kastrup wrote:
This is not a question of reinterpretation or optional.
When I referred to being able to interpret a "GPLv2 or later" work as GPLv3,
it's not _my_ interpretation -- it's an explicit permission granted by the
wording of the license grant.
This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License
as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2
of the License, or (at your option) any later version.
That's an explicit grant that says you can take _either_ the terms of the GPLv2
_or_ the terms of a later GPL version, and you can pass to downstream users
either set of permissions for your modified version.
Hence, you can link "GPLv2 or later"-licensed code against GPLv3-licensed code,
so long as the work as a whole is considered to be covered by GPLv3.
AGPLv3 grants explicit permission for you to link with GPLv3-licensed code, and
hence by the above, if a work is licensed "GPLv2 or later" it _is_ possible to
link it with AGPLv3 code by taking the permissions of GPLv3 instead of v2.
You _can't_ license redistributed works under GPLv2 if the work as a whole
contains AGPLv3 components.
Nor can you license redistributed works under GPLv2 if the work as a whole
contains GPLv3 components, and LilyPond is currently distributed under GPLv3.
You can't link "GPLv2 only"-licensed code with GPLv3 code either -- you need an
explicit "GPLv2 or later" grant to link with GPLv3 code.
Again, give me a specific case that concerns you. AFAICS these would be the
major concerns:
* "LilyPond will not be able to have GPLv2-licensed dependencies." Since LP
is GPLv3-licensed this is already the case _unless_ those dependencies are
explicitly licensed as GPLv2 or later. This was actually a major concern
at the time of the v2-v3 switch. In this respect the concerns of AGPLv3
are no different from GPLv3: you need GPLv3 compatibility in the licence
to be able to link the covered work against either GPLv3 or AGPLv3-
licensed code.
* "People will not be able to prepare derivative works of LP under GPLv2."
They already can't, as LP is now GPLv3 or later.
* "People won't be able to add new dependencies that are GPLv2-licensed."
See first point. You _already_ can't add them if they are GPLv2-only.
I'm not advocating for AGPLv3; it's just that I can't see a GPLv2 compatibility
case for AGPLv3 that doesn't also apply to LilyPond's current licensing choice
of GPLv3.
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
