Originally posted by brosis
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Phoronix Test Suite Exploring GPLv2 License
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by dee. View PostSo many people have opinions on GPLv2, GPLv3, without ever reading either license...
If you actually read all the license text and think through all the implications then talking about it stops being funTest signature
Comment
-
Originally posted by mrugiero View PostI always wondered how that worked, as it's "at your option". Whose option?
So taking the default text of the GPLv2 license, the distributor would be saying, "I'm granting you a license for the use (modification, redistribution, ...) of this software, with these terms - or if you so choose, the terms of a later version of this license" in which case, it's up to the recipient to choose whether they want to consider the software GPLv2 or GPLv3.
This mainly comes in play in license compatibility: if you want to redistribute GPLv2+ code as GPLv3, you're allowed to do that, since the license allows upgrading the license. So if you have a GPLv3 software, and you want to integrate some GPLv2+ code in it, you can do that, because that code allows distributing it as GPLv3, so it would be compatible with the license of your GPLv3 software.
So it's entirely up to the recipient to choose the license. There's no ambiguity here. Licenses don't apply to software per se - licenses only apply to a distribution, a license is just a type of automatic contract which gets applied when the distribution happens. If you put software available somewhere, you do it under the terms of some license. That's also why changing the license doesn't change the terms of all existing copies - because once a software is distributed from distributor to recipient under the terms of one license, that instance of the software stays under that license, because the license applies to the event of distribution.
So there could never be any court case where there's dispute over wheteher a software is considered GPLv2 or GPLv3. If the copyright holder is licensed it under GPLv2, they have given permission for the recipients to consider it either GPLv2 or GPLv3, so the recipient can choose which license to accept. For that matter, since there's no such license as "GPLv3 or earlier", any case where there's a choice of license is a case where the software is distributed as GPLv2 in the first place, so it's not like the distributor could even argue "we wanted to distribute as GPLv3".
Comment
-
Originally posted by dee. View PostSo there could never be any court case where there's dispute over wheteher a software is considered GPLv2 or GPLv3. If the copyright holder is licensed it under GPLv2, they have given permission for the recipients to consider it either GPLv2 or GPLv3, so the recipient can choose which license to accept. For that matter, since there's no such license as "GPLv3 or earlier", any case where there's a choice of license is a case where the software is distributed as GPLv2 in the first place, so it's not like the distributor could even argue "we wanted to distribute as GPLv3".
Comment
-
"which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange"
Well guess what, if you distribute your software using internet, how can internet not be a medium for software interchange?
It is not written "on a CD", or "on a medium customarily used at the time of writing this license", or "on a medium of the choice of the guys asking for the source".
Any medium that is commonly used to distribute software can be used to distribute the source.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Kristian Joensen View PostGPLv2+ means the program is available under the terms of the GPLv2 and hence is open to tivoization. You are allowed to do any thing with GPLv2+ software that you are allowed to to do with GPLv2 software.
Comment
Comment