Suppose a package XX has a version-A under GPL-V2 and a forthcoming version-B. Suppose also that version -B is a severe modification of version-A. Now if version-B is to be released under GPL-V3 and suppose the earlier version is also to be maintained for some time, then I believe that the code from version-A would not be usable in version-B. Or how is this migration handled ?
Best
A. Mani
2007/7/7, Mani A a.mani.cms@gmail.com:
Suppose a package XX has a version-A under GPL-V2 and a forthcoming version-B. Suppose also that version -B is a severe modification of version-A. Now if version-B is to be released under GPL-V3 and suppose the earlier version is also to be maintained for some time, then I believe that the code from version-A would not be usable in version-B. Or how is this migration handled ?
Only those who owns the copyright to the package XX can change the package version from GPL v2 to GPL v3. The same people (or those who submit patches to v2 only branch) can relicense the code from v2 only branch to v3.
I don't think it is a big issue, if you can make a v2 to v3 transition from A to B, then why not the patches?
Cheers Praveen
On 7/9/07, Praveen A pravi.a@gmail.com wrote:
2007/7/7, Mani A a.mani.cms@gmail.com:
Suppose a package XX has a version-A under GPL-V2 and a forthcoming version-B. Suppose also that version -B is a severe modification of version-A. Now if version-B is to be released under GPL-V3 and suppose the earlier version is also to be maintained for some time, then I believe that the code from version-A would not be usable in version-B. Or how is this migration handled ?
Only those who owns the copyright to the package XX can change the package version from GPL v2 to GPL v3. The same people (or those who submit patches to v2 only branch) can relicense the code from v2 only branch to v3.
That is ok. I should have added that that version A contains GPL V2 only code that is from elsewhere.
I don't think it is a big issue, if you can make a v2 to v3 transition from A to B, then why not the patches?
It seems that is a problem. Back porting anything from B to A would be providing for treacherous computing possibly. So in this kind of situation it makes sense to stop maintaining version A. If a patch is considered for version A and that is relevant for version B, then it should be released for version B alone.
Best
A. Mani
2007/7/10, Mani A a.mani.cms@gmail.com:
That is ok. I should have added that that version A contains GPL V2 only code that is from elsewhere.
If they can make that code GPL v3 then what is the issue about updates? If you want to have the code available in both the branches then you can dual license it so that it can be used in both v2 and v3 branch. Before accepting any changes to v2 branch this condition can be set.
I don't think it is a big issue, if you can make a v2 to v3 transition from A to B, then why not the patches?
It seems that is a problem. Back porting anything from B to A would be providing for treacherous computing possibly.
I don't understand what is your concern. Can you elaborate a bit? There isn't anything new, even if only package B is maintained those who want to use to treacherous computing can use version B (only thing they have to maintain it for themselves).
So in this kind of situation it makes sense to stop maintaining version A. If a patch is considered for version A and that is relevant for version B, then it should be released for version B alone.
As long as it is available in version B why bother about version A?
-
Mani A -
Praveen A