This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sourceware.org
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: Switching GAS to GPLv3
Hi Ralf,
What does this mean for backporting fixes from binutils trunk to older
binutils releases?
So the answer appears to be that in order to apply patches made to GPLv3
sources to previous releases we have to change the affected files over
to the GPLv3 as well.
In my understanding everybody who submits patches to binutils must have
a copyright assignment to the FSF on file (unless patches are considered
trivial).
Correct.
I am I wrong in presuming that a patch contributed under a copyright
assignment can be implied to cover GPLv2 and GPLv3?
I think so - I think that there needs to be an explicit statement to this
effect from the patch's author.
In other words, if I's submit a patch against a GPLv3'd version of a
package I'd implicitly assume my patch also to be applicable to a
GPLv2'd version of the package.
The danger word in that paragraph is "implicit". My understanding is that
relicensing the patch needs to be explicit. Here is what I understand the
situation to be:
* If you contribute a patch against a source file which is currently
licensed under "the GPL version 2 (or at your option a later version)"
then you, or someone else, may apply that patch to a version of that
source file that is licensed under version 3 of the GPL.
* If you contribute a patch against a source file which is currently
licensed under the GPL version 3, you also have the right to
explicitly state that your patch can be applied to versions of the
source file that are licensed under GPLv2 (or indeed any other
license). You may choose to make this statement at the time that
you contribute the patch or at a later date.
* If however you contribute a patch against a source file which is
currently licensed under the GPLv3 and you do not make any
statement about applying the patch to GPLv2 sources then another
person (or company) cannot take your patch and apply it to the
GPLv2 copy of the source file without changing the license on that
file to GPLv3.
Ie, it is assumed that the person (or company) is backporting the
patch from the GPLv3 file to the GPLv2 file, rather than receiving
the patch directly from yourself, and as a consequence the GPLv3
license is inherited by the patched file.
I hope that this makes things clear.
Cheers
Nick