4 ms·

>- Force the project onto GPL3 Pretty sure this isn't allowed. The terms of GPLv2 allows the recipient of the software to modify and distribute the software un

>- Force the project onto GPL3 Pretty sure this isn't allowed. The terms of GPLv2 allows the recipient of the software to modify and distribute the software under terms of GPLv2 or later. The software isn't public domain, someone owns the IP. You can distribute your own changes as you please. You cannot strip the IP owner's license and replace it wholesale.

CameronNemo 5y ago
They changed from GPL-2.0-or-later to GPL-3.0-or-later. The latter is a subset, so any content licensed under the former can be relicensed under the latter without consulting the original author.
- wang_li 5y ago
  The license sets the terms by which you can redistribute the software, it doesn't allow you to set the terms for the people you distribute it to. The only person/entity who can change the terms of the license is the copyright holder. People who receive this software will always have the right to redistribute under GPLv2.
  - ArneBab 5y ago
    As soon as you do any copyrightable change, you have the right to declare that change GPLv3 or later and that makes the overall project GPLv3 or later. The previously existing code will still be GPLv2 or later, but you’ll have to trawl the commit history to find out what’s also available under GPLv2 or later. So it is perfectly legal to relicense under GPLv3 or later, it’s just rude: https://www.draketo.de/english/politics/relicensing-gpl2plus-agpl3 https://www.draketo.de/english/politics/relicensing-gpl2plus...
    - wang_li 5y ago
      If I have a program that consists of 5 files each of which is exactly 2000 lines lone and I distribute under GPLv2 or later. You like my program but realize that you have a novel new algorithm that will speed up the core functionality of my program by 300% and your algorithm only needs 100 new lines in one of the source files. You are totally free to add your hundred lines under terms that are compatible with my original license. You cannot proceed to remove or change my headers that specify my copyright and my license terms to the 10,000 lines of code of which I am the sole copyright holder.
mikevin 5y ago
As someone who's not too familiar with IP law/GPL versions: is GPL3 not "GPLv2 or later"?
- redis_mlc 5y ago
  No, GPL3 has a patent clause that is nowhere in GPLv2 (to counter Tivoization.) So GPLv2 is acceptable to most people using GPL software already, but GPL3 is not. Note that linux is GPL, so most companies do allow GPL2 for OS' and databases when pressed hard enough.
- afiori 5y ago
  They meant that you cannot once a piece of code is released by GPLv2 you cannot unrelease under GPLv2. So even if every new version and contribution is required to specify a GPLv3-or-later license all previous contributions and versions are still in GPLv2-or-later, which is more permissive. I think the comment was addressing a misconception around how the project as a whole is licensed and its individual contributions or past versions are licensed and the fact that GPLv2-or-later works cannot be revoked as the user can always freely chose between the GPLv2 and the "later".

CameronNemo 5y ago

They changed from GPL-2.0-or-later to GPL-3.0-or-later. The latter is a subset, so any content licensed under the former can be relicensed under the latter without consulting the original author.

wang_li 5y ago
The license sets the terms by which you can redistribute the software, it doesn't allow you to set the terms for the people you distribute it to. The only person/entity who can change the terms of the license is the copyright holder. People who receive this software will always have the right to redistribute under GPLv2.
- ArneBab 5y ago
  As soon as you do any copyrightable change, you have the right to declare that change GPLv3 or later and that makes the overall project GPLv3 or later. The previously existing code will still be GPLv2 or later, but you’ll have to trawl the commit history to find out what’s also available under GPLv2 or later. So it is perfectly legal to relicense under GPLv3 or later, it’s just rude: https://www.draketo.de/english/politics/relicensing-gpl2plus-agpl3 https://www.draketo.de/english/politics/relicensing-gpl2plus...
  - wang_li 5y ago
    If I have a program that consists of 5 files each of which is exactly 2000 lines lone and I distribute under GPLv2 or later. You like my program but realize that you have a novel new algorithm that will speed up the core functionality of my program by 300% and your algorithm only needs 100 new lines in one of the source files. You are totally free to add your hundred lines under terms that are compatible with my original license. You cannot proceed to remove or change my headers that specify my copyright and my license terms to the 10,000 lines of code of which I am the sole copyright holder.

mikevin 5y ago

As someone who's not too familiar with IP law/GPL versions: is GPL3 not "GPLv2 or later"?

redis_mlc 5y ago
No, GPL3 has a patent clause that is nowhere in GPLv2 (to counter Tivoization.) So GPLv2 is acceptable to most people using GPL software already, but GPL3 is not. Note that linux is GPL, so most companies do allow GPL2 for OS' and databases when pressed hard enough.
afiori 5y ago
They meant that you cannot once a piece of code is released by GPLv2 you cannot unrelease under GPLv2. So even if every new version and contribution is required to specify a GPLv3-or-later license all previous contributions and versions are still in GPLv2-or-later, which is more permissive. I think the comment was addressing a misconception around how the project as a whole is licensed and its individual contributions or past versions are licensed and the fact that GPLv2-or-later works cannot be revoked as the user can always freely chose between the GPLv2 and the "later".