From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25476 invoked by alias); 10 Aug 2007 14:51:21 -0000 Received: (qmail 25419 invoked by uid 22791); 10 Aug 2007 14:51:19 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from heller.inter.net.il (HELO heller.inter.net.il) (213.8.233.23) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Fri, 10 Aug 2007 14:51:11 +0000 Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 (IGLD-80-230-204-18.inter.net.il [80.230.204.18]) by heller.inter.net.il (MOS 3.7.3a-GA) with ESMTP id DIO86522 (AUTH halo1); Fri, 10 Aug 2007 17:51:06 +0300 (IDT) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 14:51:00 -0000 Message-Id: From: Eli Zaretskii To: DJ Delorie CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org In-reply-to: (message from DJ Delorie on 09 Aug 2007 19:12:04 -0400) Subject: Re: [RFA/GPLv3] Add COPYING3 to gdb Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2007-08/txt/msg00208.txt.bz2 > Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org > From: DJ Delorie > Date: 09 Aug 2007 19:12:04 -0400 > > > Eli Zaretskii writes: > > Doesn't version 3 fit the "version 2 or later" clause? > > IANAL, but IMHO... > > The old license allows us to *distribute* under newer terms. > > It does not allow us to actually change the license. > > I think this means that if we distribute a GPL2+ program to someone > under the terms of GPL3, the program itself is still under the terms > of GPL2+. Perhaps there's a misunderstanding. I didn't suggest to change the blurb in the files. All I suggested is replace the file COPYING we have now (which is GPL v2 text) with GPL v3 text, without changing the name of the file, so it's still COPYING. This way, the files that are under "version 2 or later" are still okay, since we distribute them under GPL v3. Okay?