| |||||||||||||
Red Hat and the GPLRed Hat and the GPLPosted Mar 11, 2011 17:31 UTC (Fri) by dwmw2 (subscriber, #2063)In reply to: Red Hat and the GPL by corbet Parent article: Red Hat and the GPL GPLv2 actually requires more here than GPLv3. Although GPLv3 only requires the work as a whole to carry a prominent notice that you modified it, GPLv2 requires it of individual modified files:
a) You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices
stating that you changed the files and the date of any change.
Distributing the original source plus the patches would meet this requirement, at least in spirit although perhaps one could argue that for the modified files to carry prominent notices you'd actually have to insert obnoxious comments into the files themselves, rather than providing that information "out-of-band" in the patch set.
(Log in to post comments)
Red Hat and the GPL Posted Mar 18, 2011 19:06 UTC (Fri) by mishad (guest, #69757) [Link]
> Although GPLv3 only requires the work as a whole to carry a prominent notice that you modified it, GPLv2 requires it of individual modified files:
Does that mean that GPLv2 is incompatible with GPLv3.?
That is, that GPLv2 code cannot be incorporated into a GPLv3 derived work, because of the "no additional restrictions" clause?
Surely not?
Red Hat and the GPL Posted Mar 18, 2011 19:24 UTC (Fri) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link]
Yes, it does mean precisely that. Unless a codebase is licensed under GPLv2 or later, it typically cannot be incorporated with GPLv3 code.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main#GPL_Compatib...
|
|||||||||||||