Re: gplv3 files and updates

[Bruce Korb]

On 6/29/07, Simon Josefsson <address@hidden> wrote:
> "James Youngman" <address@hidden> writes:
>
> >> Maybe we should have doc/COPYINGv2 and doc/COPYINGv3 (ditto
> >> COPYING.LESSER) in gnulib, with no doc/COPYING at all, so the choice is
> >> explicit?  Other ideas?
> >
> > That seems reasonable to me at first.  Projects which include gnulib
> > code will need to slect one or the other because mixing the two is not
> > possible, AIUI.
>
> As far as I understand, mixing code licensed under GPLv3 with code
> licensed under "GPLv2 or later" (which is what the GPL'ed code in gnulib
> is today, I believe) should be fine, and results in that the GPLv3
> applies to all of the code.

OTOH, Mr. Licensing (AKA, Brett Smith) has said that they are incompatible,
so you cannot mix them up in the same program.  (Whatever a "program" is.;)
So, pick-your-favorite-license seems reasonable until dust settles a
bit. - Bruce