RE: GPLv3 Position Statement

From: Neil Brown
Date: Thu Sep 28 2006 - 22:46:14 EST

On Thursday September 28, davids@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > In my very uninformed opinion, your problem is a very minor one. Your
> > "v2 or later" code won't get the license v2 removed, it will become
> > dual "v2 or v3" licensed. And assuming that v3 only adds restrictions
> > and doesn't allow the licensee any additional rights, you, as the
> > author, shouldn't have to worry much.
> >
> > The problem arises later. As with BSD/GPL dual licensed code, where
> > anyone can take the code and relicense it as either BSD or GPL, "v2 or
> > v3" code can get relicensed as v3 only. At this point, nothing is
> > lost, as the identical "v2 or v3" code still exists. But with further
> > development on the "v3 only" branch, you have a fork. And one that
> > doesn't just require technical means to get merged back, but has legal
> > restrictions.
> Unless I'm missing something, you *cannot* change the license from "v2 or
> later at your option" to "v3 or later". Both GPLv2 and GPLv3 explicitly
> prohibit modifying license notices. (Did the FSF goof big time? It's not too
> late to change the draft.)

Could you point to the test in either license that prohibits modifying
license notices?
I certainly couldn't find it in section 2 of GPLv2, which seems to be
the relevant section.

Interestingly, 2.b seem to say that if I received a program under
GPLv2, and I pass it on, then I must pass it on under GPLv2-only...
So to be able to distribute something written today under GPLv3 (when
it comes into existence), you must be the original or have received it
directly from the original author....

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at