Subject: Re: GPLv3 draft
From: "Stephen J. Turnbull" <>
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2006 16:27:32 +0900

>>>>> "Ben" == Ben Tilly <> writes:

    Ben> Stephen, I'm going to put what simo says

    > simo> the GPLv3 license is NOT GPLv2 compatible.

Is that what you mean by "what simo says"?

    Ben> into the, "it should be obvious" bucket.

It was to me and Bernard, but for the wrong reason.  It was not to
Norbert, and Mr. Moglen himself has muddied the waters.  For all these
reasons, I think it's a good idea to try to put together a correct
standard explanation.

    Ben> If the FSF thought that the GPL v2 logically implied
    Ben> everything that is in the GPL v3, then there would be no
    Ben> reason to release the GPL v3.  They could just explain why
    Ben> the GPL v2 already says what they want.

That's making a pretty strong assumption about the way the FSF thinks.
But the FSF has gone to great trouble to put the explanations into the
license (ignoring the kibitzing of some pretty smart lawyers, to
boot).  They might very well have decided that it would be a good idea
to clarify everything that they can in a compatible way, especially in
a new environment with new laws.

It's also possible that compatibility would depend on jurisdictions,
etc., and that in jurisdictions where incompatibility would result
they want to enforce their intrepretation, and do so by making it

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