On Sun, 2011-09-25 at 03:32 +0900, zxq9 wrote: > Is it appropriate to include a GPLv3 library into a GPLv2 work? > (A work that is expressly *not* GPLv2+?) > > If not, why? > (The "for any purpose" clause seems to cover this from both directions > -- and anyway they are both GPL licenses so this is definitely within > the spirit and intent of the GPL...?) <tangent> The relevant intent here is that of the projects that chose to grant GPLvN only rather than GPLvN+. FSF would certainly prefer if everyone granted GPLvN+ (Savannah even requires it), but understandably, some projects do not trust FSF as a steward of future license upgrades. For these cases, the GPL (unlike some other free software licenses) is designed to make it possible to grant GPLvN only. Had that option not been available, we would likely have seen further fragmentation of licenses. So, actually, it directly contravenes the intent of the projects to combine GPLv2-only and GPLv3-only work. (Let's leave aside the question of the tenability of FSF's claim that dynamic linking creates a derivative work.) </tangent> -- Matt _______________________________________________ legal mailing list legal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/legal
