Hi,
Last Moodle version is under GNU GPLv3. How can they upgrade from GPLv2 version? All contribuitors give permission for license upgrade?
Thanks in advance, Marc.
I'm sure that there was a lengthy discussion about this but it must have been several years ago. Is there a particular reason why you bring this up I wonder?
I am no expert, but I thought that V2 had a clause in it allowing you to use "any later version".
I am no expert, but I thought that V2 had a clause in it allowing you to use "any later version".
Earlier versions of the Moodle licence block made reference to later versions of the GPL. This is taken from a 2008 Moodle code file
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.
The move from V2 to V3 makes very little difference to most people.
Marcus
Hi,
It doesn't matter. I'm studying a Degree about Free Software and I used Moodle like student many times. I don't know how upgrading GPL v2 Moodle(1.x) to GPL v3 Moodle(2.x) .
The clausule "any later version" is optional.
I'm programming in Php language and some times I rewrite php files under GPL v2 version. I undestand that I can't upgrade to GPL v3. How moodle can upgrade GPL v2 to v3? All contribuitors gave permission?
Thank, Marc
Sorry for my english skill
Are you sure that those files are not GPL v2 ONLY? I know that some do say that. This didn't apply to Moodle but (IIRC) was an issue for some of the 3rd party libraries (which did have the v2 ONLY clause).
As I say, though, I don't pretend to be an expert. My reading of the GPL FAQ (http://gplv3.fsf.org/dd3-faq#compat-matrix-footnote-3) is that you can take GPL v2 code and use it in a GPL v3 project as long as it is not "ONLY". It doesn't say anything about "with the original author's permission". If you think that is an issue then you might want to point us to the source of your information (please).
As I say, though, I don't pretend to be an expert. My reading of the GPL FAQ (http://gplv3.fsf.org/dd3-faq#compat-matrix-footnote-3) is that you can take GPL v2 code and use it in a GPL v3 project as long as it is not "ONLY". It doesn't say anything about "with the original author's permission". If you think that is an issue then you might want to point us to the source of your information (please).
Hi,
I donn't sure to understand you.
The only thing I hope is(IMO):
1) a source code license under GNU GPL:
if no clausule especifies the version you can apply any GPL version (v2 or v3 or later)
if a clause especifies version x, you may apply GPL version x
if a clause especifies version x or later, you can apply GNU GPL x or later.
2) I don't Know GPL text that specifies v2 only clause. By default, I think that if no other versions are especified it means only the GPL version especified?
3) if I the author (copyrigth it's mine) of a file under GPL or any other license I can relicense to any kind of license but people can always use,modify,distrubute the original file according previous GPL license.
2) A Gpl v2, a copyleft license, incompatible with many other licenses like GPLv3, can be relicensed to GPLv3 by the author.
4) If a license clausule says GPL v2 or later, there isn't any problem to use,modify,distribute under a GPL v3 software
Thanks, Marc
I'm not completely sure I understand you, but it sounds like we agree 
After going over this conversation, I realised that a number of lawyers have been sitting around making a lot of money with this kind of nonsense since lawyers first started splitting hairs. Is anyone studying law here?
I just enjoy a random argument
I frighten my students by telling them that not only do I have the O'Reilly book of Open and Free software licenses, I have even read it.
The really pernicious aspect of these kinds of questions, which most people would classify as FUD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_uncertainty_and_doubt), is how they keep organizations from seriously considering using tools like Moodle. An otherwise smart and informed colleague told me that her corporation's legal department took the position that every line of code in an open-source application would need to be checked to make sure it didn't belong to someone else; otherwise the corporation could be liable for copyright infringement. That's where your corporate CMS comes in: "We'll made sure you never see the code, so you'll have no idea where it comes from, plus we'll stand behind it and we have our own legal dep't." Then the corporate CMS seems like the safer option - a loss for the open-source community.