On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 02:47:31AM -0600, Eric Smith wrote: > IANAL, but if the added GPL3 code is, as Richard said, an "isolated utility" > that is not linked to any of the GPL2+ code (an assumption about the nature of > an "isolated utility"), then isn't this "mere aggregation"? I didn't say anything about an isolated utility, but now I see that Tim did. So my original assumption was that there was something more than 'mere' aggregation, but if that's not true then the answer and analysis are different (and easier). Or rather the end result is objectively the same, but the way you look at it might be different. > I'm not arguing that there's anything wrong with relicensing the GPL2+ source > to GPL3, only that I don't think it automatically occurs in the described > scenario. If it was desired to relicense the GPL2+ source to GPL3, I think > that should be done explicitly, by actually changing the license notices. I basically agree; the idea of implicit relicensing is something that was invented to reconcile what one group of people say about license compatibility and GPL interpretation with what another group of people (which probably overlaps somewhat, maybe even significantly, with the first group) actually do. - RF _______________________________________________ legal mailing list legal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/legal
