On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 02:07:18AM -0700, Rick Moen wrote:
> Quoting KatolaZ (katolaz@???):
>
> > Apart from that, it is a copyleft licence, which guarantees to users
> > and developers the same 4 freedoms which inspired GPLv1 and
> > GPLv2. Just remember that, for a formal reason, GPLv2 and GPLv3 are
> > link-incompatible. In fact, each of them specifies that the software
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > they cover (and any derivative) should be distributed under "the same
> > licence".
>
> FSF's frequently repeated notion that there's something of vital legal
> importance about the act of linking is unsupported by copyright law.
> (And yes, I'm saying that what the GPL FAQ says on this subject is
> total rubbish. It's what FSF would _like_ to be the case.)
>

Sorry for being sloppy on that. I intended to say that you can't
combine GPLv2-only and GPLv3 code and distribute a derivative work
under the terms of either the GPLv2 or GPLv3. But I believe this is a
bit too technical anyway, and applies only to software distributed
under GPLv2-only (i.e., all the cases where the clause "or any later
version" is missing from the license statement).

Linking is another story, and is indeed much more complicated than
that...

HND

KatolaZ

-- 
[ ~.,_  Enzo Nicosia aka KatolaZ - GLUGCT -- Freaknet Medialab  ]  
[     "+.  katolaz [at] freaknet.org --- katolaz [at] yahoo.it  ]
[       @)   http://kalos.mine.nu ---  Devuan GNU + Linux User  ]
[     @@)  http://maths.qmul.ac.uk/~vnicosia --  GPG: 0B5F062F  ] 
[ (@@@)  Twitter: @KatolaZ - skype: katolaz -- github: KatolaZ  ]