open-discussion
open-discussion > RE: Choosing a license
Jul 7, 2011 07:07 PM | Yaroslav Halchenko
RE: Choosing a license
Originally posted by Nicolas kassis:
and such compatibility opens additional doorway for "relicensing" --
e.g. if originally project is under some permissive license (e.g. MIT)
you could go to more restrictive one (e.g. GPL) for derivative work,
thus making whole project GPL-ed (without asking any permission from the
copyright holders) -- you would just need to keep listing original
license/copyrights for that work under less-restrictive license as well. It is
the going from more restrictive to more permissive one which usually
requires consulting all copyright holders/contributors... and it is indeed the fun of GPL v2 vs v3
"incompatibility":
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html
Is GPLv3 compatible with GPLv2?
No. Some of the requirements in GPLv3, such as the requirement to
provide Installation Information, do not exist in GPLv2. As a result, the
licenses are not compatible: if you tried to combine code released under both
these licenses, you would violate section 6 of GPLv2.
However, if code is released under GPL “version 2 or later,” that is compatible
with GPLv3 because GPLv3 is one of the options it permits.
To be compatible means you can take code under
two different licenses and use them together in a project. For
example if you create a new project that under the GPL and want to
use BSD code for some stuff that would be fine. The opposite won't
work (BSD project using GPL code) since the GPL requires all
derivative code to also be GPL. Librairies usually will use the
LGPL to allow the projects using it to choose another license. The
LGPL isn't as broad on what constitute derivative work.
and such compatibility opens additional doorway for "relicensing" --
e.g. if originally project is under some permissive license (e.g. MIT)
you could go to more restrictive one (e.g. GPL) for derivative work,
thus making whole project GPL-ed (without asking any permission from the
copyright holders) -- you would just need to keep listing original
license/copyrights for that work under less-restrictive license as well. It is
the going from more restrictive to more permissive one which usually
requires consulting all copyright holders/contributors... and it is indeed the fun of GPL v2 vs v3
"incompatibility":
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html
Is GPLv3 compatible with GPLv2?
No. Some of the requirements in GPLv3, such as the requirement to
provide Installation Information, do not exist in GPLv2. As a result, the
licenses are not compatible: if you tried to combine code released under both
these licenses, you would violate section 6 of GPLv2.
However, if code is released under GPL “version 2 or later,” that is compatible
with GPLv3 because GPLv3 is one of the options it permits.
Threaded View
| Title | Author | Date |
|---|---|---|
| Christian Haselgrove | Jul 5, 2011 | |
| Christian Haselgrove | Jul 14, 2011 | |
| Michael Hanke | Jul 6, 2011 | |
| Ged Ridgway | Jul 6, 2011 | |
| Michael Hanke | Jul 6, 2011 | |
| Christian Haselgrove | Jul 7, 2011 | |
| Michael Hanke | Jul 7, 2011 | |
| Nicolas kassis | Jul 7, 2011 | |
| Yaroslav Halchenko | Jul 7, 2011 | |
| Michael Hanke | Jul 6, 2011 | |
| Yaroslav Halchenko | Jul 6, 2011 | |
| Satrajit Ghosh | Jul 6, 2011 | |
| Matthew Brett | Jul 6, 2011 | |
| Nicolas kassis | Jul 5, 2011 | |
| Judd Storrs | Jul 6, 2011 | |
| Nicolas kassis | Jul 6, 2011 | |