[geeklog-devel] Geeklog CKEditor Integration

[Niemans]

From http://www.gnu.org/licenses/rms-why-gplv3.html

When we say that GPLv2 and GPLv3 are incompatible, it means there is no legal way to combine code under GPLv2 with code under GPLv3 in a single program. This is because both GPLv2 and GPLv3 are copyleft licenses: each of them says, “If you include code under this license in a larger program, the larger program must be under this license too.” There is no way to make them compatible. We could add a GPLv2-compatibility clause to GPLv3, but it wouldn't do the job, because GPLv2 would need a similar clause.

And also

Fortunately, license incompatibility matters only when you want to link, merge or combine code from two different programs into a single program. There is no problem in having GPLv3-covered and GPLv2-covered programs side by side in an operating system. For instance, the TeX license and the Apache license are incompatible with GPLv2, but that doesn't stop us from running TeX and Apache in the same system with Linux, Bash and GCC. This is because they are all separate programs. Likewise, if Bash and GCC move to GPLv3, while Linux remains under GPLv2, there is no conflict.

Wim


Op 28 jul. 2013, om 18:59 heeft Tom het volgende geschreven:

>>> No, we are "GPLv2 or later". We have a copy of the GPLv2 in
> public_html/docs but that's only the actual text of the license.
> 
> Ahh that is where I looked. 
> 
>> From further reading on the subject from other sources it looks like to me
> since we are using "GPLv2 or later" it should be okay to integrate GPLv3
> code.
> 
> So to me it looks like it will be fine. 
> 
> Any further insight Dirk? (or anyone else)
> 
> Tom
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: geeklog-devel-bounces at lists.geeklog.net
> [mailto:geeklog-devel-bounces at lists.geeklog.net] On Behalf Of Dirk Haun
> Sent: July-28-13 11:40 AM
> To: Geeklog Development
> Subject: Re: [geeklog-devel] Geeklog CKEditor Integration
> 
> Ugh, license interpretation time again :-/
> 
> 
> Tom wrote:
> 
>> I believe we are GPLv2 only.
> 
> No, we are "GPLv2 or later". We have a copy of the GPLv2 in public_html/docs
> but that's only the actual text of the license. Any code that does have a
> license header (and is GPL - we have one or two other licenses) says this:
> 
> // | This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
> |
> // | modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License
> |
> // | as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2
> |
> // | of the License, or (at your option) any later version.
> |
> 
> 
>> I also don't know if it matters that we are integrating a GPLv3 code into
> GPLv2 code and not the other way around.
> 
> That is also what I'm not so sure about. However, if it would make a
> difference, it sure would be covered in the GPL FAQ, wouldn't it? But I
> guess we need to confirm this before we can move on.
> 
> Personally, I have some reservations regarding the GPLv3 but if mixing it
> with GPLv2 ("or later") code is allowed and we can restrict it to a
> clear-cut part of the project (like a 'ckeditor' directory), then I don't
> see a problem. I just don't want us switching to v3 without a good reason.
> 
> bye, Dirk
> 
> 
> -- 
> http://www.themobilepresenter.com/
> 
> _______________________________________________
> geeklog-devel mailing list
> geeklog-devel at lists.geeklog.net
> http://eight.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/geeklog-devel
> 
> _______________________________________________
> geeklog-devel mailing list
> geeklog-devel at lists.geeklog.net
> http://eight.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/geeklog-devel
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://pairlist8.pair.net/pipermail/geeklog-devel/attachments/20130728/616c3e5c/attachment.html>