Ville Skyttä wrote: > On Sunday 22 July 2007, Hans de Goede wrote: >> Ville Skyttä wrote: >>> On Sunday 22 July 2007, Hans de Goede wrote: >>>> For those who want to know, gkrellm has moved to GPL v3, coming >>>> from GPL v2 >>> >>> What implications does this have on gkrellm plugins, most of which >>> I think are currently "GPL v2 or later"? >> >> IANAL, but I guess that when used with the latest gkrellm they have >> just become GPL v3 or later. > > In that case, do packagers need to do something about the v2+ > copyright notices included in the plugin packages or embedded in > their code? If the copyright notice includes the text (or something similar): "This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version." Then wouldn't it already be covered? Changing it to something like "version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version" would seem wrong to me, as it would place a limitation on the end-user that wasn't intended by the copyright holder (and a limitation that AFAIK isn't needed by Fedora in order to distribute the package). -- Todd OpenPGP -> KeyID: 0xBEAF0CE3 | URL: www.pobox.com/~tmz/pgp ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Left to Her own devices, nature cures stupidity.
Attachment:
pgpa5vzXSTGIV.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- Fedora-maintainers mailing list Fedora-maintainers@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers
-- Fedora-maintainers-readonly mailing list Fedora-maintainers-readonly@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers-readonly
