On Thu, 29 May 2014 09:18:43 -0400 Richard Fontana <rfontana@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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 sure if this is an important distinction but I figure that it probably wouldn't hurt to make sure: The utility itself will be isolated in a directory of the main project. However, that utility will read several other gpl2+ licensed source files in order to generate our documentation. > > 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. Thank you all for your input on this. I really appreciate it. Tim
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ legal mailing list legal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/legal
