RE: how about mutual compatibility between Linux's GPLv2 and GPLv3?

["David Schwartz" <davids@webmaster.com>]

Alexandre Oliva write:

> > The GPL does sometimes use the word "may" where it's not clear
> > whether it
> > means you have permission or you must be able to. The general rule of
> > construction is that "may" means permission, unless there's some clear
> > indication to the contrary. The "may"s in sections one and two are
> > permisssion against a claim of copyright enfrocement. The "further
> > restriction" clause is, at it states, only on the exercise of *rights*
> > (which I think means those rights licensed to you under copyright law,
> > namely the right of distribution and copying).

> ... and modification and, depending on the jurisdiction, execution.

Modification, yes. Execution, well, if the rules of a jurisdiction are
insane, you will get insane results from almost any contract.

Fortunately, the GPL makes it clear that execution is unrestricted for GPL'd
works, but does not style this as a GPL right. One would hope that
jurisidictions that have such strange rules would interpret the GPL to
effect the same result under their laws as was intended under the laws the
GPL was written with respect to, to the extent possible.

Treating ordinary use as a copyright privilege leads to nonsensical results
no matter what you do. For example, you get that I can drop copies of my
poem from an airplane and then sue anyone who reads it.

DS