Jeroen Roovers wrote: > No, it just says most GPL-2 software was released with the "version 2 or > later" clause, as in "This software is released under the GPL version 2 > or later". > > That's a promise that any later version will do for /this/ software, not > in any way a promise that whatever was released as GPL-2 can be > redistributed as GPL-3.
Sorry, I should have been more clear. I meant, doesn't the GPL-COMPATIBLE license group assume that GPl-2 is v2+? If an ebuild is listed as GPL-2, but it's version 2 only, then surely it isn't GPL-compatible, because it's incompatible with GPL-3. > Of course you can sell the software (as long as you distribute the [perhaps] >derivative sources), you just can't /license/ it for money. >Please look into the legal verbiage - you seem incredibly confused as to what >it all means and you're confusing the matter even more for others. Thanks for clearing that up. If that's the case, then isn't GPL-1 in the same boat as GPL-2? As they are both incompatible with GPL-3 if the "or any later version" clause isn't included.
