User: Password:
|
|
Subscribe / Log in / New account

The next GPL: Why it's being shaped on GitHub (InfoWorld)

The next GPL: Why it's being shaped on GitHub (InfoWorld)

Posted Jul 9, 2012 11:25 UTC (Mon) by pbonzini (subscriber, #60935)
In reply to: The next GPL: Why it's being shaped on GitHub (InfoWorld) by kevinm
Parent article: The next GPL: Why it's being shaped on GitHub (InfoWorld)

No, because as soon as you copy in GPLv2-only code, GPLv3-or-later, or GPLv3-only code your code is not anymore GPLv2/GPLv3 dual-licensed. It has a large GPLv2/GPLv3 dual-licensed core, but it can only be distributed in its entirety under GPLv2 or GPLv3, depending on the license of the code you took.


(Log in to post comments)

The next GPL: Why it's being shaped on GitHub (InfoWorld)

Posted Jul 16, 2012 3:20 UTC (Mon) by kevinm (guest, #69913) [Link]

I don't think that's true. If you copied in, say, GPLv2-only code then that code says "you must offer to license your derivative work under the GPLv2". Licensing your derivative work under either GPLv2 or GPLv3 fulfills that.

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.

The next GPL: Why it's being shaped on GitHub (InfoWorld)

Posted Jul 16, 2012 4:07 UTC (Mon) by dlang (subscriber, #313) [Link]

no, if you include GPLv2 code only, you have no rights to distribute it under the GPLv3, it makes your resulting codebase GPLv2 only when combined.

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