News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on I will not sign the CLA for less than $100, payable in Bitcoins in advance. Parent comment

Re:I will not sign the CLA for less than $100, payable in Bi... by icebraining on Monday April 06, 2015 @12:03PM (#9328796)
Some projects use "GPLv2 or any later version", though I'm not sure how that holds up legally.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:I will not sign the CLA for less than $100, payable in Bi... by adrusi on Monday April 06, 2015 @12:13PM (#9328867)
The GPLv2 requires that all derivative works be licensed under the GPLv2 or any later version of the GPL. The maintainer can get a way with this in a way semantically equivalent to forking the project using a later version of the GPLv2.

As long as contributors are licensing their contributions under the terms of the GPLv2, they're also licensing them under all future versions.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:I will not sign the CLA for less than $100, payable in Bi... by mjg59 on Monday April 06, 2015 @12:22PM (#9328929)
> The GPLv2 requires that all derivative works be licensed under the GPLv2 or any later version of the GPL

No it doesn't. The relevant part of the license is:

Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and "any later version", you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that version or of any later version published by the Free Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number of this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation.

ie, it's optional to use the "or any later version" language.

[ Parent | on HN ]