Re: Relicensing Nautilus to GPLv3+

Ah yes, my bad. For some reason my mind didn't accept the "GPL2-only is compatible with GPL2+". All clear now.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Relicensing Nautilus to GPLv3+
Local Time: May 19, 2017 12:05 AM
UTC Time: May 18, 2017 10:05 PM
From: [email protected]
To: Carlos Soriano <[email protected]>
[email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort <[email protected]>, Frederic Crozat <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>

On Thu, 2017-05-18 at 15:47 -0400, Carlos Soriano wrote:
> Maybe I didn't explain well. Emilio points out there could one one of
> those extensions that say GPL2+ to link to a GPL2-only library. But
> that would make the extension itself GPL2 anyway, and it's License
> file would have to reflect that initially.

Again, it wouldn't. The combined work would be GPLv2-only, but each one
of the items keeps its own license. The licenses are compatible.

You don't have to have an piece of code depending on the exact same
version of the license if those licenses are compatible. GPLv2-only is
compatible with GPLv2+, as the license mentions for that dependency
says:
"either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later
version."

The selection is "made" automatically when you run those 2 items in the
same memory address space (eg. when you "link" them).

> It's just a hipotetical case, I checked the extensions dependencies
> in a quick look and look fine (>= GPL+2).
--
nautilus-list mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/nautilus-list

_______________________________________________
desktop-devel-list mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list