On Saturday 29 January 2011 22:42:16 Arnold Krille wrote: > On Saturday 29 January 2011 21:52:06 Jeremy Salwen wrote: > > On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 1:14 PM, Arnold Krille <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Oh, changing the license without the permission from all > > > copyright-holders is > > > the same kind of crime and results in the same penalties. Regardless > > > whether > > > you switch from "gpl2 or any later" to "gpl3 only" or from "gpl2 or > > > later" to > > > "gpl3 or later" or even from "gpl2 or later" to "gpl2"... > > > > Actually, I'm pretty sure that the exact opposite is true. When you > > distribute "under the terms of the GPL2 or later", that means I can > > accept your program under the terms of the GPL3. The terms of the GPL3 > > say that I can modify it and redistribute it under the GPL3. Similarly > > for the GPL2. Notice the language says "*or* later", not "*and* later". > > I get to choose which license I agree to. Otherwise, it would be > > pointless to even offer it under the "GPL 2 or later" because I would > > *have* to distribute it under the GPL3, which places further > > restrictions on top of the GPL2, meaning that it would effectively be > > under the GPL3 no matter what. > > You are right. Redistributing code from "gpl2 or any later" can happen > under gpl3 or any later. Now what about redistributing it under "gpl3 > only"?
Stupid me, of course one can relicense it under "gpl3 only"... "gpl2 or later" includes redistribution with "gplX or later" and "gplX only" with X>=2. Off to bed, Arnold
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Linux-audio-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
