4 ms·

> “GPLv2 or later” cannot be changed to either GPLv2 or GPLv3 only without permission... What? Of course it can be changed to either. It literally says so in t

> “GPLv2 or later” cannot be changed to either GPLv2 or GPLv3 only without permission... What? Of course it can be changed to either. It literally says so in the license name.

zvr 6y ago
No, it does not say such thing. “GPLv2 or later” says you are allowed to use it under GPLv2 or GPLv3 (for now). It does not allow to change it to GPL-2.0-only (to use the correct SPDX identifier).
- yc12340 6y ago
  > “GPLv2 or later” says you are allowed to use it under GPLv2 or GPLv3 I am afraid, that you are wrong. GPL does not govern usage of software at all. You don't need to agree to GPL in order to use GPL licensed software. This is literally said in text of GPL itself. The preamble ("this program is free software...") is not part of GPL itself — it is just short informative text. And you are misremembering, what preamble says. Citing from GNU website: > 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 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. I believe, that we should erase all SPDX-whatever nonsense from Linux source code, and replace it back with proper preamble — least other users of GPL software start to misremember as well.
  - Conan_Kudo 6y ago
    the SPDX short identifiers are a great way for people to misunderstand how the license works. The preamble that the FSF suggests makes it clear what it does, why it works that way, and how you can leverage it.
  - yrro 6y ago
    > You don't need to agree to GPL in order to use GPL licensed software. I've wondered for some time how a user is granted permission to use GPL-licensed software; permission is not explicitly granted by the GPL, but it is required so that the user can copy the software to their computer, and into memory for it to be executed, is it not? (I am aware that the answer will vary by jurisdiction)
  - CrLf 6y ago
    The GPL does not explicitly grant permission to use the software, that is true. However, its terms are clear about the conditions in which you lose that right.
- skissane 6y ago
  If I take a GPLv2-or-later work, change the license notice to say GPLv2-only (or GPLv3-only, or GPLv3-or-later), and distribute it with that modified notice, have I violated the copyright licenses or copyright law? IANAL but I believe the answer is "No". Now, if all I've done is change the license notice, my change is legally ineffective – anyone who receives it from me can change it back to the original GPLv2-or-later, and I have no legal recourse against them. However, if at the same time as changing the license, I also make (non-trivial) modifications to the code, then recipients cannot legally change the license back to the original GPLv2-or-later without either reverting my code changes or seeking my permission. (This is because I own copyright in my code changes as a derived work.)
  - CrLf 6y ago
    > IANAL but I believe the answer is "No". The answer is "Yes". Think about it this way: the license is "GPLv2 or later", not "GPLv2" or "GPLv3". If you change the license notice, you are changing the terms in which people will receive the code from you. The GPL (both of them) clearly says you cannot do this. You have to distribute modified works under the exact same terms you received the original work, or you lose the right to use the software (both original and modified) yourself if you violate its licensing terms.
    - skissane 6y ago
      The standard wording for a GPLv2-or-later license (as recommended by the appendix of GPLv2 itself) is: > 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. Per that notice, I have an option of distributing it under the terms of GPLv2, or under the terms of the GPLv3, or even a GPLv4 if the FSF were to someday publish one. So, I decide to make use of that option and distribute it under the terms of the GPLv3. You can't argue that from the text of the GPLv2 or GPLv3 that I don't have the option which the license statement says that I do. The license statement applying the GPLv2 (or GPLv3) text is of greater authority than the text of the GPL itself. You can't use the later to cancel out the option granted by the former.

> “GPLv2 or later” cannot be changed to either GPLv2 or GPLv3 only without permission... What? Of course it can be changed to either. It literally says so in the license name.

zvr 6y ago

No, it does not say such thing. “GPLv2 or later” says you are allowed to use it under GPLv2 or GPLv3 (for now). It does not allow to change it to GPL-2.0-only (to use the correct SPDX identifier).

yc12340 6y ago
> “GPLv2 or later” says you are allowed to use it under GPLv2 or GPLv3 I am afraid, that you are wrong. GPL does not govern usage of software at all. You don't need to agree to GPL in order to use GPL licensed software. This is literally said in text of GPL itself. The preamble ("this program is free software...") is not part of GPL itself — it is just short informative text. And you are misremembering, what preamble says. Citing from GNU website: > 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 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. I believe, that we should erase all SPDX-whatever nonsense from Linux source code, and replace it back with proper preamble — least other users of GPL software start to misremember as well.
- Conan_Kudo 6y ago
  the SPDX short identifiers are a great way for people to misunderstand how the license works. The preamble that the FSF suggests makes it clear what it does, why it works that way, and how you can leverage it.
- yrro 6y ago
  > You don't need to agree to GPL in order to use GPL licensed software. I've wondered for some time how a user is granted permission to use GPL-licensed software; permission is not explicitly granted by the GPL, but it is required so that the user can copy the software to their computer, and into memory for it to be executed, is it not? (I am aware that the answer will vary by jurisdiction)
- CrLf 6y ago
  The GPL does not explicitly grant permission to use the software, that is true. However, its terms are clear about the conditions in which you lose that right.
skissane 6y ago
If I take a GPLv2-or-later work, change the license notice to say GPLv2-only (or GPLv3-only, or GPLv3-or-later), and distribute it with that modified notice, have I violated the copyright licenses or copyright law? IANAL but I believe the answer is "No". Now, if all I've done is change the license notice, my change is legally ineffective – anyone who receives it from me can change it back to the original GPLv2-or-later, and I have no legal recourse against them. However, if at the same time as changing the license, I also make (non-trivial) modifications to the code, then recipients cannot legally change the license back to the original GPLv2-or-later without either reverting my code changes or seeking my permission. (This is because I own copyright in my code changes as a derived work.)
- CrLf 6y ago
  > IANAL but I believe the answer is "No". The answer is "Yes". Think about it this way: the license is "GPLv2 or later", not "GPLv2" or "GPLv3". If you change the license notice, you are changing the terms in which people will receive the code from you. The GPL (both of them) clearly says you cannot do this. You have to distribute modified works under the exact same terms you received the original work, or you lose the right to use the software (both original and modified) yourself if you violate its licensing terms.
  - skissane 6y ago
    The standard wording for a GPLv2-or-later license (as recommended by the appendix of GPLv2 itself) is: > 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. Per that notice, I have an option of distributing it under the terms of GPLv2, or under the terms of the GPLv3, or even a GPLv4 if the FSF were to someday publish one. So, I decide to make use of that option and distribute it under the terms of the GPLv3. You can't argue that from the text of the GPLv2 or GPLv3 that I don't have the option which the license statement says that I do. The license statement applying the GPLv2 (or GPLv3) text is of greater authority than the text of the GPL itself. You can't use the later to cancel out the option granted by the former.