Strange... something is off, and I don't which part... The reference you gave says GPL *3* introduced implied patent grant.
However, as far as I understand, [1] says otherwise. [1] <https://copyleft.org/guide/comprehensive-gpl-guide.pdf> (under CC BY-SA 4.0). Particularly, see chapter 6 ("GPL’s Implied Patent Grant"). 2017-11-30T11:00:19+0100 jodie...@yahoo.com wrote: > What is the difference between GPLv2 and GPLv3? > http://www.ifross.org/en/what-difference-between-gplv2-and-gplv3 > > GPLv3 of June 29, 2007 contains the basic intent of GPLv2 and is an > Open Source license with a strict copyleft (→ What types of licenses > are there for Open Source software, and how do they differ?) However, > the language of the license text was strongly amended and is much more > comprehensive in response to technical and legal changes and > international license exchange. > > The new license version contains a series of clauses that address > questions that were not or were only insufficiently covered in version > 2 of the GPL. The most important new regulations are as follows: > > a) GPLv3 contains compatibility regulations that make it easier than > before to combine GPL code with code that was published under > different licenses (→ What is license compatibility?). This concerns > in particular code under Apache license v. 2.0. > > b) Regulations concerning digital rights management were inserted to > keep GPL software from being changed at will because users appealed to > the legal regulations to be protected by technical protective measures > (such as the DMCA or copyright directive). The effectiveness in > practice of the contractual regulations in the GPL has yet to be seen. > > c) The GPLv3 contains an explicit patent license, according to which > people who license a program under the GPL license both copyrights as > well as patents to the extent that this is necessary to use the code > licensed by them. A comprehensive patent license is not thereby > granted. Furthermore, the new patent clause attempts to protect the > user from the consequences of agreements between patent owners and > licensees of the GPL that only benefit some of the licensees > (corresponding to the Microsoft/Novell deal). The licensees are > required to ensure that every user enjoys such advantages (patent > license or release from claims), or that no one can profit from them. > > d) In contrast to the GPLv2, the GPLv3 clearly states that there is no > requirement to disclose the source code in an ASP use of GPL programs > as long as a copy of the software is not sent to the client. If the > copyleft effect is to be extended to ASP use (→ When does > independently developed software have to be licensed under the GPL?), > the Affero General Public License, Version 3 (AGPL) must be applied > that only differs from the GPLv3 in this regard. > > > When is GPLv2 used, and when is GPLv3 used? > http://www.ifross.org/en/when-gplv2-used-and-when-gplv3-used > License holders can choose if they want to use version 2 or version 3 > of the software if the following reference is provided: > > "this program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify > it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by > the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at > your option) any later version.” > > > With which licenses is the GPLv3 compatible? > http://www.ifross.org/en/which-licenses-gplv3-compatible\ > The GPLv3 is compatible with the following licenses (but not vice versa): > > Apache License, Version 2 > Affero General Public License, Version 3 (see sec. 13 of GPLv3) > Lesser General Public License, Versions 2, 2.1 and 3 (LGPL) > BSD license without the advertising clause > CeCILL (CONTRAT DE LICENCE DE LOGICIEL LIBRE CeCILL) > Artistic License 2.0 > Zope Public License, Version 2.0 und 2.1 > > Note: This means OSS under a listed license can generally be used for > creating OSS under GPLv3. It does not mean OSS under the GPLv3 may be > incorporated into OSS which uses one of these licenses. > > If there is no reference to the license version, you can also choose > between version 2 and version 3. > > The licenseholder is only restricted to a specific license version by > the phrases "version 2 only," or version 2” without the added phrase > "any later version". This is the case with the Linux kernel that > contains such a reference by Linus Torvalds in the COPYING file. > Source text under "version 3 of the license or (at your option) at any > later version" cannot be introduced into the Linux kernel, and > conversely, code that is licensed as "version 2 only" cannot be used > in projects that are already licensed under GPLv3. GPLv2 and GPLv3 > are then incompatibl > > -- - https://libreplanet.org/wiki/User:Adfeno - Palestrante e consultor sobre /software/ livre (não confundir com gratis). - "WhatsApp"? Ele não é livre. Por favor, veja formas de se comunicar instantaneamente comigo no endereço abaixo. - Contato: https://libreplanet.org/wiki/User:Adfeno#vCard - Arquivos comuns aceitos (apenas sem DRM): Corel Draw, Microsoft Office, MP3, MP4, WMA, WMV. - Arquivos comuns aceitos e enviados: CSV, GNU Dia, GNU Emacs Org, GNU GIMP, Inkscape SVG, JPG, LibreOffice (padrão ODF), OGG, OPUS, PDF (apenas sem DRM), PNG, TXT, WEBM.
