Subject: Re: GPLv3 draft
From: "Stephen J. Turnbull" <>
Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2006 22:25:53 +0900

>>>>> "Norbert" == Norbert Bollow <> writes:

    Norbert> I'm neither sublicensing nor changing the license texts.
    Norbert> The A-licensed part of the program P is distributed under
    Norbert> the terms of License A.  The B-licensed part of the
    Norbert> program P is distributed under the terms of License B.

From a strategic point of view, isn't that altogether too close to
claiming that strong copyleft == weak copyleft?  Maybe you can get it
to work legally, but ... brrrr, gives me a chill.

I think you *are* sublicensing, because you must apply GPLv2 to the
GPLv3 portion of the work, and vice versa.  The fact that in your
opinion the terms are semantically the same does not change the fact
that you are required to dual-license the whole work, and furthermore,
you are required to impose dual-licensing on your downstream.

    Norbert> Unless if I have overlooked a subtle problem of the kind
    Norbert> that [...] GPLv3-draft1 imposes a condition on
    Norbert> distributors which GPLv2 does not allow to impose.

I knew there was something trivial!  You are required to distribute a
copy of GPLv3 with the program.  GPLv2 does not allow such a requirement.

Graduate School of Systems and Information Engineering   University of Tsukuba        Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN
        Economics of Information Communication and Computation Systems
          Experimental Economics, Microeconomic Theory, Game Theory