Hi :) Gerhard Fuernkranz wrote:
Well, the header of the file actually sais: This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) *ANY LATER VERSION* Doesn't this imply dual/multi licensing anyway (making it implicitly V3 compatible)?
Yup, that's right. There's no problem with linking GPL2+ with GPL3. As you say, the GPL2+ part is implicitly "promoted".
As I understand it, though, there *is* a problem with linking GPL2+ with AGPL3. GPL3 and AGPL3 would be potentially incompatible with each other, but for some specific wording in each, giving explicit permission to link with the other. This wording in AGPL3 doesn't extend to GPL2, and GPL2 has no such dispensation regarding the AGPL.
As I understand it (and I'm certainly no expert in such matters) distributors are perfectly at liberty to explicitly relicense GPL2+ code as GPL3, and doing so in this case would, I think, solve the issue.
All the best, -- Alastair M. Robinson