On Mon, 2007-07-23 at 17:00 +0200, Hans de Goede wrote: > As said in my previous post, one could argue that they were not distributable > then in the first place because: > 1) They are a derived work of gkrellm > 2) gkrellm was licensed GPL v2 or (at your option) any later version > 3) having a derived work of gkrellm that allows only gpl v2 would be placing an > additional restriction on distributing, which is not allowed. IANAL but I think this is fallacious. gkrellm is giving me a license to use the software/code in any way that I see fit so long as I follow the GPLv2 or *(at my option)* any later version. So I can accept the gkrellm code under a GPLv2-only license and write my plugin with that understanding. I could also accept the gkrellm code under GPLv3-only and write my plugin to that. -Toshio
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- 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
