On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 12:33 PM, Bernie Innocenti <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, 2011-04-22 at 16:45 +0100, Peter Robinson wrote: > >> > We're not retroactively re-licensing existing code. >> >> Really? By moving to GPLv3 your removing the ability to use GPLv2 >> which is by definition a re-license of the code. > > Not really, this is a common misconception: redistributing code under > later versions of the GPL is explicitly allowed by the current licensing > terms (GPLv2 or later). > > If it weren't the case, then we'd have to ask for permissions to all > copyright holders, which includes present and past contributors of > legally relevant portions of the code. What constitutes a "legally > relevant" portion is a matter of infinite arguments between copyright > lawyers.
Yes, you seem to be confused Bernie. You can redistribute under a license however you like, usually without explicitly stating it. But if you alter the source files or replace COPYING, you are *changing the license*. That is a different act. A more passive-aggressive means to your end might be to announce that SugarLabs will only accept new contributions which are licensed GPLv3+. That will effect the redistribution change you want, while still (a) pissing off parts of the community, and (b) not illegally altering the license on code you do not own. --scott -- ( http://cscott.net ) _______________________________________________ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) [email protected] http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
