gkrellm license change notificaition

Hans de Goede j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl
Mon Jul 23 17:21:11 UTC 2007

Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-07-23 at 17:00 +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
>> As said in my previous post, one could argue that they were not distributable 
>> then in the first place because:
>> 1) They are a derived work of gkrellm
>> 2) gkrellm was licensed GPL v2 or (at your option) any later version
>> 3) having a derived work of gkrellm that allows only gpl v2 would be placing an
>>     additional restriction on distributing, which is not allowed.
> IANAL but I think this is fallacious.  gkrellm is giving me a license to
> use the software/code in any way that I see fit so long as I follow the
> GPLv2 or *(at my option)* any later version.  So I can accept the
> gkrellm code under a GPLv2-only license and write my plugin with that
> understanding.  I could also accept the gkrellm code under GPLv3-only
> and write my plugin to that.

You can write your plugin no matter what, because the GPL is about 
distributing, if you distribute your derived work, you must do so under the 
conditions of the original work, and those conditions say that you may not 
impose additional restrictions, taking away the receivers right to distribute 
the received derived work under a later version of the GPL is a further 



More information about the Fedora-maintainers mailing list