From murdoch.duncan at gmail.com  Fri May  3 20:59:30 2013
From: murdoch.duncan at gmail.com (Duncan Murdoch)
Date: Fri, 03 May 2013 14:59:30 -0400
Subject: [Rd] Licence change
In-Reply-To: <DC5D928A-BF65-41EF-A043-52E040B65041@gmail.com>
References: <5183CAEC.8080208@jrc.ec.europa.eu>
	<303921F7-3702-46AA-922A-8F773F9002D8@r-project.org>
	<5183D85D.2000103@jrc.ec.europa.eu> <5183E8DB.7040206@gmail.com>
	<DC5D928A-BF65-41EF-A043-52E040B65041@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <51840912.1000307@gmail.com>

On 03/05/2013 2:29 PM, peter dalgaard wrote:
> On May 3, 2013, at 18:42 , Duncan Murdoch wrote:
>
> >>
> >> " one practical problem with requiring GPL >=3 is that it is not GPL-2
> >> compatible"
> >
> > It may mean that one of your users won't be able to use the package, for example if something else that they need requires GPL-2 licensing.
>
> Actually, with the GPL licenses, usage is not a problem, but distribution can be.

Yes, absolutely.

Duncan Murdoch
> These legalities are a bit inane, and I try to forget about them as far as possible, but I think trouble kicks in if someone wants to distribute a work that derives from both GPL-2 and GPL-3 codes.  What "derived" means is yet another inane discussion...
>



[Rd] Licence change
Duncan Murdoch