Re: Changing top level files and include/ files over to GPLv3

[Corinna Vinschen <vinschen@redhat.com>]

On Jul  9 13:39, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jul  9, 2007, Gerald Pfeifer <gerald@pfeifer.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, 9 Jul 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> >> At which point I wonder why someone would have problems upgrading the
> >> license of an earlier GCC code base.  Can anyone list any reasons why
> >> this upgrade would be objectionable, considering that it was widely
> >> (?) known that GCC (and any other FSF-owned code) would upgrade to
> >> GPLv3 pretty much as soon as it was available?
> 
> > I am not sure the customers of $X will appreciate a license change of
> > this kind with a point release,
> 
> The code was already GPLv2+.
> 
> And then, any customer can still do whatever they could, beyond any
> doubt, under GPLv2, and then some more: GPLv3 relaxes a number of
> GPLv2 requirements, and clarifies a number of GPLv2 requirements to
> make sure none of newly-invented restrictions are interpreted as not
> covered by the "no further restrictions" wording.

This isn't quite correct.  v3 adds restrictions which were not present
in v2.  That's why linking v3 and v2-only stuff violates v2-only, but
not v3.


Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen
Cygwin Project Co-Leader
Red Hat