Subject: Re: GPLv3 draft
From: "Stephen J. Turnbull" <>
Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2006 13:50:18 +0900

>>>>> "simo" == simo  <> writes:

    simo> 1st) the FSF says clearly that the GPLv3 license is NOT
    simo> GPLv2 compatible.

Hm, I expected that but didn't see it on; it's not in
the FAQ.  Oh, well.

I still can't find anything "clear".  In
Eben Moglen says, "no", then he says that in some practical cases
there is compatibility, which will decrease over time, using precisely
the scenario that Norbert cites.  I also found this:

    All licenses which were compatible with GPLv2 are compatible with
    GPLv3.  (

If you have better authority than I could find, maybe you should fix
that to read something like:

    All existing licenses which were compatible with GPLv2, with the
    exception of GPLv2 itself, are compatible with GPLv3.  (This
    exception is normally not a problem, since most authors grant
    permission to use later versions of the GPL.)

    simo> 2nd) two licenses must be claim by claim compatible, not
    simo> word by word identical.

But in the case of the GPL, one of those claims is that the
distribution must take place under the "same terms".  Can you give me
a reference describing how a court would make that determination in
the absence of (nearly) identical wording?

Note that even the LGPL, whose intent is clearly to provide the same
terms as the GPL on a restricted domain of programs, has an explicit
conversion clause.

BTW, I found it interesting that several of the false positives in my
search mention the issue of the FUD-ability of GPLv3, even saying that
it would be a factor in a decision to fall back to GPLv2 rather than
release GPLv3 at this time.

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