LGPL 2.1 + GPL 3 = problems?
matthew.flaschen at gatech.edu
Mon Jul 16 04:51:04 UTC 2007
Philippe Verdy wrote:
> Note the exact statement is:
> "(If a newer version than version 2 of the ordinary GNU General
> Public License has appeared, then you can specify that version
> instead if you wish.)"
> But it is not cleared enough to explicitly state which "newer version" of
> the GPL is usable
Any of them are usable.
, notably because it does not explicitly say if it is
Say if /what/ is valid?
What makes the statement clear is "as published by the Free Software
> Foundation" in the copyright notice.
That is a useful clarification, but I think the main statement "a newer
version than version 2 of the ordinary GNU General Public License" is
sufficient, and implies only FSF-published versions count.
> These contestable terms (because it could include any other licence
> compatible with the GPLv2
I don't see how this is.
, including one containing some terms not published
> by the FSF itself)
It might be interpreted as accidentally including some rogue third-party
license calling itself GNU GPL v4, but I don't think this is likely
were revised in GPLv3 (section 14) and LGPLv3, by
> explaining where such extended permission can be found:
> "If the Program specifies that a certain numbered version of the
> GNU General Public License “or any later version” applies to it,
> you have the option of following the terms and conditions either
> of that numbered version or of any later version published by the
> Free Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a
> version number of the GNU General Public License, you may choose
> any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation."
This is present in both GPLv2 and LGPLv2.1, essentially unchanged.
"If the Program specifies a version number of this License which applies
to it and "any later version", you have the option of following the
terms and conditions either of that version or of any later version
published by the Free Software Foundation. If the Program does not
specify a version number of this License, you may choose any version
ever published by the Free Software Foundation."
This is not the same as the statement in the body of LPGLv2.1 that
allows relicensing under later versions of the GPL.
> This statement explicitly makes additional restrictions to the future
> versions of the GPL (in the sense of section 10 of the GPLv3)
No, this is not an additional restriction in the sense of section 10.
If it was, it would automatically be voided, which makes no sense.
, as explained
> in the following paragraphs in that section 14 of the GPLv3.
Are you referring to "However, no additional obligations are imposed on
any author or copyright holder as a result of your choosing to follow a
> This interpretation was confirmed by the FSF
What confirmation are you referring to?
>, and justified the need to include an upgrade to the referenced version of the GPL, to be fair with
> what was done with the LGPLv2 in the past (when used in combination with
> other non-FSF but compatible licenses).
I don't understand what this means. LGPLv3 refers to GPLv3 because
GPLv3 is the latest version, and has advantages (from the FSF
perspective at least) over GPLv2.
More information about the License-discuss