> Richard> Now, suppose I apply it to the GPLv2 version of the file. One could > Richard> argue that such file is now GPLv3 and I think that'd be correct. > Richard> But since the parts of the file being patched are identical, the > Richard> patch is indistinguishable from one that's derived from GPLv2 text. > Richard> This strikes me as a VERY murky legal areas. > > I believe this scenario is exactly RMS's expectation if someone other > than the original author copies / backports a patch from a GPLv3 file.
But I'm even worried about the case where the *original* author does it. So I developed a patch from a GPLv3 file. I now go back and "develop" the same patch from the GPLv2 file, which has all relevant parts identical. The resulting patches are identical. Making the claim that these two identical things done by the same person in the same way have different copyright statuses might be legally correct, but as a practical matter seems absurd since there's no way to tell them apart as they're identical. This is a very bizarre situation!
