Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

GPLv2 and GPLv3 Coexisting In the Same Project?

Posted by kdawson on from the which-side-of-the-fence dept.

cyclop writes "I am coding a data analysis application in my laboratory that I would like to release as free (as in freedom) software. Moreover I am going to begin a small OSS game that will be based, in part, on GPLv2 libraries. Problem is: in both cases, I'd like to be able to exchange code both with GPLv2 and (future) GPLv3 projects. I have no particular passions about either license — only thing is I don't want BSD-style 'do anything you want' licensing but a copyleft license. I know that GPLv2 and GPLv3 are not compatible. What can I do? Double licensing? Is there a compatible-with-both license? Adding exceptions? What do you think is the best way to address the GPLv2-to-GPLv3 transition without ending up on one or the other side of the barricade?"

5 of 116 comments (clear)

  1. If it's your code do both. by MikeFM · · Score: 5, Informative

    If it's your code you can use whichever licenses you want including making your code available under more than one license. If you're using someone else's code though then you have to stick to their license.

    --
    At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
  2. Probably not as big an issue as you think by shaitand · · Score: 4, Informative

    Remember that almost all GPL'd software permits using the terms of future versions of the GPL. Unless they have chosen to omitt this part of the license you can use GPLv3 without issue. If that won't work, then you should license GPLv2 WITH the option of using the future terms. That way you are compliant with both GPLv2 and GPLv3 and let people work out the library licensing on their own.

  3. Just use GPLv2 by 3247 · · Score: 4, Informative
    The licenses are compatible if you just use the wording suggested by the FSF:

    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've highlighted the relevant words.
    --
    Claus
    1. Re:Just use GPLv2 by Tim+C · · Score: 4, Informative

      That doesn't make them compatible. That clause allows the recipient to *change* the licence from v2 to v3 (or later). It does not allow you to mix v2-licensed code and v3-licensed code in the same binary; it means that as soon as you add in some v3-licensed code, the entire thing becomes v3-licensed.

      --
      It's official. Most of you are morons.
  4. Closed Source by dangitman · · Score: 4, Funny

    What do you think is the best way to address the GPLv2-to-GPLv3 transition without ending up on one or the other side of the barricade?"

    Just become a closed source developer. That way you won't be on either side of the GPL fence. And you could (nay should) add annoying DRM to your software.

    --
    ... and then they built the supercollider.