Re: Copyright/licensing action plan + a sample [PATCH]

[Anthony W. Youngman]

In message <address@hidden>, Reinhold 
Kainhofer <address@hidden> writes
> > (That's why, actually, I believe that sticking a v2-only notice on code
> > that the author licenced v2+ is a GPL violation - you are adding
> > restrictions by denying the recipient the choice of licence.)
>
> You might be denying the reciepient the choice of license. But that does not
> violate the GPL, since v2+ says: You can use it under the GPL v2, or at your
> choice any later option. If I'm using it under the GPL v3, I'm not bound by
> what the GPL v2 says and vice versa.
> Also note that the GPL only says that you can't take away rights granted "by
> this license" (the choice between GPL v2 and v3 is NOT granted by the GPL!).
> It does not say that all rights that the author originally granted must be
> preserved...

It doesn't say all the rights the author originally granted must be 
preserved, true ... but it DOESN'T SAY YOU CAN CHANGE THEM!

If the GPL doesn't give you the right to change those rights (which it 
doesn't), then you can't change them. Therefore they MUST be preserved, 
but it's copyright law that says you can't change them, because the GPL 
doesn't say you can.

Cheers,
Wol
--
Anthony W. Youngman - address@hidden