[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

www/licenses gpl-faq.html

From: Richard M. Stallman
Subject: www/licenses gpl-faq.html
Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2016 12:29:13 +0000 (UTC)

CVSROOT:        /web/www
Module name:    www
Changes by:     Richard M. Stallman <rms>       16/12/31 12:29:13

Modified files:
        licenses       : gpl-faq.html 

Log message:
        (v2v3Compatibility): Use termination condition as example.
        (InstInfo): New question.


Index: gpl-faq.html
RCS file: /web/www/www/licenses/gpl-faq.html,v
retrieving revision 1.220
retrieving revision 1.221
diff -u -b -r1.220 -r1.221
--- gpl-faq.html        18 Nov 2016 06:31:41 -0000      1.220
+++ gpl-faq.html        31 Dec 2016 12:29:12 -0000      1.221
@@ -533,6 +533,9 @@
     <li><a href="#v2v3Compatibility">Is GPLv3 compatible with
+    <li><a href="#InstInfo">Does GPLv2 have a requirement about
+    delivering installation +information?</a></li>
     <li><a href="#AllCompatibility">How are the various GNU licenses
     compatible with each other?</a></li>
@@ -3195,16 +3198,38 @@
  <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#v2v3Compatibility"
-No.  Some of the requirements in GPLv3, such as the requirement to
-provide Installation Information, do not exist in GPLv2.  As a result,
-the licenses are not compatible: if you tried to combine code released
-under both these licenses, you would violate section 6 of GPLv2.</p>
+No.  Many requirements have changed from GPLv2 to GPLv3, which
+means that the precise requirement of GPLv2 is not present in GPLv3,
+and vice versa.  For instance, the Termination conditions of GPLv3 are
+considerably more permissive than those of GPLv2, and thus different
+from the Termination conditions of GPLv2.</p>
+Due to these differences, the two licenses are not compatible: if you
+tried to combine code released under GPLv2 with code under GPLv3, you
+would violate section 6 of GPLv2.</p>
 <p>However, if code is released under GPL &ldquo;version 2 or
 later,&rdquo; that is compatible with GPLv3 because GPLv3 is one of the
 options it permits.</p></dd>
+<dt id="InstInfo">Does GPLv2 have a requirement about delivering installation
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#InstInfo"
+ >#InstInfo</a>)</span></dt>
+GPLv3 explicitly requires redistribution to include the full necessary
+&ldquo;Installation Information.&rdquo;  GPLv2 doesn't use that term,
+but it does require redistribution to include <q>scripts used to
+control compilation and installation of the executable</q> with the
+complete and corresponding source code.  This covers part, but not
+all, of what GPLv3 calls &ldquo;Installation Information.&rdquo;
+Thus, GPLv3's requirement about installation information&rdquo is
 <dt id="Cure">What does it mean to &ldquo;cure&rdquo; a violation of GPLv3?
  <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#Cure"
@@ -3858,7 +3883,7 @@
 <p class="unprintable">Updated:
 <!-- timestamp start -->
-$Date: 2016/11/18 06:31:41 $
+$Date: 2016/12/31 12:29:12 $
 <!-- timestamp end -->

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]