Subject: RE: license categories, was: I'm not supposed to use the ECL v2?
From: "Lawrence Rosen" <lrosen@rosenlaw.com>
Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2007 13:14:06 -0800

John Cowan wrote:
> It's generally understood that if something is licensed under the GPL
> and the MPL, for example, that the licensee's powers are the union of
> those given by the GPL and by the MPL.  

I don't believe that. If my choice is between License A and License B, I
can't pick and choose some combination of provisions from A and B to create
my own preferred set of terms. I get either A or B, but not both.

It may be, depending upon license details, that once I choose between A and
B, I am committing all derivative works in the future to that choice. 

/Larry


> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Cowan [mailto:cowan@ccil.org]
> Sent: Saturday, December 01, 2007 12:19 PM
> To: Arnoud Engelfriet
> Cc: License Discuss
> Subject: Re: license categories, was: I'm not supposed to use the ECL v2?
> 
> Arnoud Engelfriet scripsit:
> 
> > The FSF's preferred statement says that the user has the option to
> > apply any later version of the GPL to the work. The work is GPLv2
> > until someone forks it and explicitly says he has elected the option
> > to apply GPLv3. Then that fork becomes GPLv3.
> 
> Can you explain why this is not the same as explicit v2/v3 dual licensing?
> It's generally understood that if something is licensed under the GPL
> and the MPL, for example, that the licensee's powers are the union of
> those given by the GPL and by the MPL.  A fortiori, it would seem to me
> that given "v2 or later" software, you can do anything that either the
> GPLv2 or the GPLv3 allows.
> 
> --
> Knowledge studies others / Wisdom is self-known;      John Cowan
> Muscle masters brothers / Self-mastery is bone;       cowan@ccil.org
> Content need never borrow / Ambition wanders blind;
> http://ccil.org/~cowan
> Vitality cleaves to the marrow / Leaving death behind.    --Tao 33
> (Bynner)