21.07.2013 15:24, Stephen Kitt пишет: > Hi, > > On Sun, 21 Jul 2013 12:21:27 +0400, Stas Sergeev <s...@list.ru> wrote: >> 21.07.2013 06:28, Bart Oldeman пишет: >>> On 20 July 2013 17:23, Stas Sergeev wrote: >>>> As far as I understand from the FSF docs, it seems the >>>> "GPLv2 only" project can be released under "GPLv2 or later" >>>> without any problems, BUT, the GPLv3 contributions >>>> will still be impossible till some "GPLv2 only" code remains. >>> Code that is copyrighted by you can be released under any license. >>> DOSEMU as a whole has to stay GPLv2-only until all files are marked >>> with the "or later" clause, or have some other compatible license. >>> >>> A "GPLv2 only" project can definitely NOT be released under "GPLv2 or >>> later" without any problems (similarly you cannot fork the Linux >>> kernel or Git and make it "GPLv2 or later"). >> But that contradicts with the GPL faq, or at least with my reading of >> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#AllCompatibility >> What makes you think so? This is a key question probably. >> My understanding is that "GPLv2 or later" is fine, and only >> translating the GPL3 requires to remove all the "GPLv2 only" >> code first. > Check footnote 2 under the table you link to: > > "While you may release your project (either your original work and/or work > that you received and modified) under GPLv2-or-later in this case, note that > the other code you're using must remain under GPLv2 only. As long as your > project depends on that code, you won't be able to upgrade the license of > your project to GPLv3-or-later, and the work as a whole (any combination of > both your project and the other code) can only be conveyed under the terms of > GPLv2." > > (This is applied to releasing a project as GPLv2-or-later including > GPLv2-only code.) > > Basically you can have one license for a project as a whole, which doesn't > necessarily match the licenses used in individual sources files, A correction: it _does_ match the individual source files... some of them. There are multiple licenses applied, "GPLv2 or later" is among them, and always was.
> but you're > still governed by the licenses applied to the source; so your "as a whole" > license has to be compatible with the various licenses in use, and > effectively only acts as a default for files which don't specify a license, > and suggests a license for new files. In DOSEMU's case, you could change the > project license to GPLv2-or-later, but that doesn't change the license on the > GPLv2-only files; the latter prevent you from applying an automatic promotion > to GPLv3 and so you can't link to GPLv3 code either. > > IANAL and all the rest, but as I understand it it could be useful for you to > change the project license, since that would reduce the "risk" of new code > being submitted under GPLv2-only, but you won't be able to add GPLv3 code > until all the GPLv2-only code has been relicensed or rewritten. Yes, that's exactly what I've done: marked all the old files as "GPLv2 only", changed the "default" (ie the license for new code) to "GPLv2 or later" and am expecting this to reduce the risk of having more of the "GPLv2 only" code in. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ See everything from the browser to the database with AppDynamics Get end-to-end visibility with application monitoring from AppDynamics Isolate bottlenecks and diagnose root cause in seconds. Start your free trial of AppDynamics Pro today! http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=48808831&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk _______________________________________________ Dosemu-devel mailing list Dosemu-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dosemu-devel
