The next GPL: Why it's being shaped on GitHub (InfoWorld)
Posted Jul 9, 2012 11:25 UTC (Mon) by pbonzini (subscriber, #60935)
Posted Jul 16, 2012 3:20 UTC (Mon) by kevinm (guest, #69913)
Of course the GPLv2-only parts cannot ever be included in a third party GPLv3+-only project, but we're only trying to make a universal reciever here, not a universal donor.
Posted Jul 16, 2012 4:07 UTC (Mon) by dlang (subscriber, #313)
This means that you can't then include code from a GPL3+ project, because you don't have any terms under which you can distribute the result.
you can't use GPLv2 because of the GPLv3 code
you can't use GPLv3 because of the GPLv2 code
Busybox realized that they had included GPLv2 only code, and so they went through and made sure they didn't have any GPLv3+ code and properly documented that the result was GPLv2 only, not GPLv2+
dual licensed codebases can be distributed under _any_ of the licenses, you can't use one license for some and a different license for other. If you could, then the CPL would be meaningless as you could 'dual license' your code GPL + proprietary and not give out the source to the proprietary bits.
Copyright © 2017, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds