Re: GPLv3

[Thomas Weber]

Am Freitag, den 12.10.2007, 11:36 +0200 schrieb David Bateman:
> Thomas Weber wrote:
> >
> > GPLv2 and later should be fine, shouldn't it? Or are there GPL2-only
> > packages? 
> >
> > For other licenses, I don't know. But I'm not aware of any license that
> > was compatible with GPL2 and isn't with GPL3.
> >   
> The issue is no that we can't transition to a GPLv3 license. 

> Rather the
> issue that worries me is that the GPLv3 license states
> 
> <quote>
> the Free Software Foundation; either version 3 of the License, or (at
> your option) any later version.
> </quote>
> 
> So officially at the moment you use a GPLv2 toolbox with Octave 2.9.15
> you must effectively relicense it to be GPLv3. Can we assume this
> process is automatic, or should we explicitly change the license of all
> of the octave-forge code to avoid doubt...

If the toolbox is GPL2 only, you have a problem using it with a GPL3 (or
later) Octave. If it says "GPL2 or later", the relicensing process is
indeed automatic. 

Note that explicitely changing the license is practically not revertible
(you'd need any later contribution to be licensed again back for GPL2). 

I don't know if it's worth the effort, unless there's something in GPL3
which you need/like better than GPL2. For compatibility, "GPL2 or later"
is sufficient. 

        Thomas