license categories, was: I'm not supposed to use the ECL v2?

[Chris Travers]

On Dec 1, 2007 12:19 PM, John Cowan <cowan at ccil.org> wrote:

> Arnoud Engelfriet scripsit:
>
> > The FSF's preferred statement says that the user has the option to
> > apply any later version of the GPL to the work. The work is GPLv2
> > until someone forks it and explicitly says he has elected the option
> > to apply GPLv3. Then that fork becomes GPLv3.
>
> Can you explain why this is not the same as explicit v2/v3 dual licensing?
> It's generally understood that if something is licensed under the GPL
> and the MPL, for example, that the licensee's powers are the union of
> those given by the GPL and by the MPL.  A fortiori, it would seem to me
> that given "v2 or later" software, you can do anything that either the
> GPLv2 or the GPLv3 allows.



 IANAL, but licenses are cumulative but disjoint.

For example under GPL v2 or later, I could not make contributions which
provide the patent licenses with a retaliation claim under the GPL v3, but
then violate the consumer device clause (just because that is allowed under
the GPL v2).

Hence I would argue that it is under both licenses as a matter of form.
However, this may or may not be as a matter of substance.  For example, we
inherit code under GPL v2 or later.  We don't have a right to put in a
linking exception without rewriting all code touching a certain library
call, and it links against OpenSSL indirectly.  This is not a problem for
the GPL v2 because nothing stops you from distributing OpenSSL as a separate
and distinct work (but still making the source available as required by the
GPL v2).  It does run amok with the GPL v3.

Hence GPL v2 or later makes no representation as to whether or not it is
possible to distribute in compliance with the GPL v3.

Hence while as a matter of form LedgerSMB is under both licenses, as a
matter of substance it is only under the GPL v2.  I am sure a lot of other
projects are in the same boat.

Best Wishes,
Chris Travers
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20071201/e9ac4f29/attachment.html>