GPLv2 forks of GPLv3 projects?

Posted Jun 30, 2007 18:36 UTC (Sat) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link]

I admit to not having read the new license, but I'm wondering if there's anything preventing anyone from taking a GPLv3 package, copying it, renaming it, slapping a GPLv2 license on it, and then releasing same?

No, there are nothing. And there are no need to include anything like this. There are such thing (not included in GPLv3) called copyright. It says: to change terms of license (and if you'll replace GPLv3 with GPLv2 you'll be changing terms of license grant for sure) you need explicit permission from copyright holder. GPLv3 does not have such permission => end of story.

Note: you can not even replace "GPLv2 and later" grant in package which uses GPLv2 today without explicit permission from copyright holder! But you can CHANGE parts of this package and slap "GPLv3 or later" on these changes (this will effectively force the whole package to become GPLv3, but if someone will manage to remove your changes - they'll be free to use GPLv2 again).

Posted Jul 2, 2007 13:54 UTC (Mon) by proski (subscriber, #104) [Link]

Forks are possible, but they would need to start with the latest version released under GPLv2.

Posted Jul 4, 2007 16:58 UTC (Wed) by copsewood (subscriber, #199) [Link]

You can start with the latest version released under GPL 2 or 2 and later and keep it that way, but you can't merge any changes that are GPL 3 only or 3 and later into your GPL 2 fork. How long you can maintain your fork will depend upon whether your development budget (time and money) goes further than that of the set of developers of the GPL3 fork. Realistically I think that most projects will follow the views of the lead developer/s.