On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 15:22:03 +0100 Peter Lewis <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thursday 26 August 2010 at 18:57 Alexander Duscheleit wrote: > > Philipp Überbacher <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Besides that, I think it's future proof. > > > One issue though is that the meaning of: > > > ('GPL2' 'GPL3') > > > isn't the same as: > > > 'GPL2 or later' > > > It only is practically the same because there's nothing beyond > > > GPL3 yet. > > > > Just out of curiosity... > > > > Supposed, there is a GPL4 around at some time in the future. > > Now, if I receive some software under the terms of "GPL2 or later", > > would it be in my right, to redistribute said software under "GPL3 > > only" as opposed to "GPL3 or later"? > > Yes, this is your right. Just as you can take some software released > under "GPL2 or at your option, any later version" and redistribute it > under GPL3 only. This is "your option". You do not have the pass the > option on, since that doesn't form part of the copyleft. > > Of course, someone else can redistribute the original under GPL2 > only, GPL4 only, GPL2 "or later" or GPL3 "or later". That's their > option :-) > That was my understanding, too. :-) It gets more interesting, when I make changes to my redistributed software, though. If i understand correctly, if upstream is GPL2+ and my version is GLP3 only, I effectively either cut upstream out from my changes or force them to upgrade their version to GPL3 only (not even GPL3+). This looks to me, like I could violate the spirit of the GPL through the GPL itself. (Poaching in lawyers waters as a layman sure is fun :-D.) Jinks
