> Doesn't that mean we would need to license the sources as GPLv3 as
> well?

They're already licensed as GPLv3. GPLv2+ mean you have GPLv2 and GPLv3 licensing concurrently.

Basically, it says "choose between GPLv2 or GPLv3 as you like".

> Isn't> the intent of the GPLv3 to be a one-way conversion route? It sounds
> really weird to me to distribute the sources under a different license
> than the binary.

The binary and source would both share GPLv3 licensing. The source would also have GPLv2 (but not the binary). GPL version conversion is one way in that the two licenses are incompatible (each imposes restrictions not allowed by the other). But theres no reason you can't have both on the same code, you just pick whichever one you want to follow when passing out binaries and source.

This sort of thing is actually very common. A lot of software is distributed under dual licenses. For instance mysql is GPL unless you pay, then you get a proprietary license which obviates the requirements of the GPL. In our case choosing GPLv3 removes the GPLv2 requirements on the binary, but does not relicense the actual source (which is impossible since you can't un-GPLv2 something after you distribute the source).

                                               
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail is redefining busy with tools for the New Busy. Get more from your inbox.
http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_2
Received on 2010-07-04