LGPL 2.1 + GPL 3 = problems?

[Matthew Flaschen]

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
> valid.

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. 
GPLv2 says:

"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 
later version."?

> 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.

Matt Flaschen