Atte André Jensen wrote: > Hi > > I write a little code from time to time. I just discovered that at least > some of it is still under GPL. Now I'm thinking about changing that to > GPLv3. > > 1) Can I Just Do It, simply by stating on the webpage and/or in the > software that it's under GPLv3. If its your code, then yes. If its other peoples code and the GPLv2 license says "GPL version 2 or later" then is find to link with GPLv3 code. If you intend to modify it heavily you can simply change the license to GPLv3 leaving the copyright unmolested (apart from maybe adding your own (c) if you are doing any significant additions. > 2) Is it (as I understand from > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/rms-why-gplv3.html) recommended to change to > GPLv3? What are the main advantages (both for the community and me) with > GPLv3 and are there any drawbacks? The only problem is with code with a GPLv2 header where the part that says "GPL version 2 or later" has been removed. I believe GPLv2only and GPLv3 code is not compatible. Fors software licenses, this: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html is really good. > NB2: I also wrote some "patches" for various synths and stuff like that. > I know it's been brought up here before, but forgot the answers. Could > that be released under GPL(v3) as well or is it better to use CC, and if > so which dialect is recommended? CC Attribution (or maybe CC Share Alike) is probably best for synth patches. Cheers, Erik -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Erik de Castro Lopo http://www.mega-nerd.com/ _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
