On Thursday 14 June 2007 20:55, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
quoted text
> It does not matter. GPL v2 and later can be reduced to v2 by
> recepient.

And expanded by the next recipient to GPLv2 or later, as long as the first=
=20
recipient does not make a substantial modification ("substantial" is a=20
copyright term - there is no precise definition how much must be modified,=
=20
but a line or two may not count as "substantial"). This is because you=20
receive the license from the original author, not from the man in the=20
middle.

What's still open is how you can change the conditions if you do make=20
substantial changes. My position is: If you modify work (i.e. work with=20
multiple licensors), you are not in a position to change the conditions,=20
since you have to pass on the rights you have (and that included "you may=20
use any GPL" or "you may use GPLv2 or later"). If you create work, you are=
=20
the only licensor, so you can choose (the created work needs to be=20
sufficiently independent, which e.g. a ZFS from OpenSolaris clearly would=20
be). If you combine work, you can ship the combined work only under a GPL=20
version that matches the common subset, but you cannot change the license=20
of the parts. By adding stuff under GPLv2 only, and then combining the work=
=20
to a larger work, you may achieve the effect that the larger work is then=20
GPLv2 only. You cannot achieve that people take out the GPLv2 only work,=20
and recombine it for themselves - these people then can choose other=20
license, and combine it e.g. with GPLv3 code.

If you distribute work under multiple possible license, you can also choose=
=20
which conditions you want to fulfill. But that's not imposing restrictions=
=20
to the next recipient, so the next recipient can choose again.

It's so simple: Only the author can impose restrictions, everybody else,=20
when using the GPL, has to pass on all the rights he got. If you get a=20
court verdict depends on the law system, and in an anglo-saxonian (roman)=20
system, you might get away by exploiting loopholes, but in a Code Napoleon=
=20
system, you don't, because exploiting loopholes is not "good faith".

=2D-=20
Bernd Paysan
"If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself"
http://www.jwdt.com/~paysan/