decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal


User Functions

Username:

Password:

Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Not true | 197 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
GPLv2 -->GPLv3
Authored by: Tkilgore on Friday, September 14 2012 @ 04:13 PM EDT
I still don't see how Twin Peaks could now get around Section 7 of the GPLv2
without giving a free license to any patent which the company would wish to
assert, too. As quoted above,
the relevant section says

"7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent
infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions
are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that
contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the
conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy
simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent
obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all.
For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of
the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you,
then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain
entirely from distribution of the Program."

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Not true
Authored by: jjs on Friday, September 14 2012 @ 06:00 PM EDT
Code licensed under "GPL 2 or later" can be licensed under
GPL3. However, Linux is under GPL2 (no "or later"), and
thus can't be relicensed without rewrite or getting
permission of every copyright holder.

The GPL2 license (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-
licenses/gpl-2.0.html) does NOT contain the relicensing.
it state:
Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If
the Program specifies a version number of this License which
applies to it and "any later version", you have the option
of following the terms and conditions either of that version
or of any later version published by the Free Software
Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number
of this License, you may choose any version ever published
by the Free Software Foundation.

so explicitly states that to allow relicensing you need to
specify the "any later version."

---
(Note IANAL, I don't play one on TV, etc, consult a practicing attorney, etc,
etc)

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )