Peter Köhlmann <peter.koehlmann@xxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
> Mark Kent wrote:
>
>> Peter Köhlmann <peter.koehlmann@xxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>>> Mark Kent wrote:
>>>
>>>> chrisv <chrisv@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>>>>> Oldtech wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Why do you think that contractual agreements visa vi copyrighted
>>>>>>material is any different? By the agreement already entered via
>>>>>>contract between Microsoft and Novell, Microsoft agreed to abide by the
>>>>>>terms of the GPL.
>>>>>
>>>>> GPL2, not 3.
>>>>
>>>> If you look at most GPLed projects, they do not specify the version,
>>>> rather, they specify /whatever the latest version is/.
>>>>
>>>> Microsoft and Novell were both aware of this.
>>>>
>>> They are aware of the current state of GPLed projects. Which is still
>>> GPL2 or "GPL2 or later"
>>> There is nothing automatic. Anyone can fork off a "GPL2 or later" version
>>> for eternity if he wants to from the last state of a project which has
>>> that license version
>>
>> Yes, Microsoft and Novell could get together and try to fork all the
>> GPLed code they find, and try to support it themselves. The issue is,
>> though, that they lack the resources to do so.
>>
>>>
>>> You should also be aware that the GPL3 is *not* compatible with "GPL2
>>> only". This means, that each project which now contains such code has to
>>> be rewritten or it must stay GPL2.
>>> You absolutely must check the licenses of all the code of any given
>>> project which you want to relicense to GPL3. For that reason alone
>>> already you have no automatic transition to GPL3
>>
>> Which is why the clause, above, is inserted into as many projects as is
>> possible.
>>
>
> You still don't get it, it seems
> If it were automatically GPL3, it could very well be illegal, since
> the "GPL2 or later" code /can/ include code which is "GPL2 only" (that is
> legal).
Such code would have the restriction to the legacy GPL version, so it
wouldn't be included in an uplift to the latest version, which is also
where Microsoft appear to have been caught out. They thought that if
they did the deal with Novell, they could somehow stop the uplift to
GPLv3 from happening, but they cannot for the huge number of projects
that have the note in which says GPLv2 or later, or for those which have
already moved.
> You can't simply "upgrade" the "GPL2 or later" code to GPL3, since
> GPL3 and "GPL2 only" are *incompatible* licences. You are *not* allowed to
> mix them in a project, making "automatic GPL3" a complete NoNo.
> You are required to inspect the licences of the whole project to make sure
> they are compatible with GPL3
This is about mixing licences, or at least, licence versions, though,
which is hardly the same thing as the licence terms for an individual
work or project. Microsoft were aware of all of this, and have found
themselves in a very embarassing position, now asking Novell to
distribute the code they promised to. I'm not sure about the
contractual position of that promise, as I've never seen the terms, nor
would I be likely to, so perhaps they can get away with it in this way.
Nevertheless, they tried to get under the radar, and were not
successful, because enough projects are going GPLv3, or have the GPLv2
or later clause in them, to stop Microsoft from charging a proprietary
tax on Linux distros and software.
--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
| Cola faq: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/ |
| Cola trolls: http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/ |
| My (new) blog: http://www.thereisnomagic.org |
|
|
