Merging Apple's Objective-C 2.0 compiler changes

[Robert Dewar]

On 9/15/2010 4:59 PM, Richard Kenner wrote:

> I don't mean to keep this thread alive longer, but that answer is
> not to the question we've been discussing.  OF COURSE you can
> "redistribute" a GPLv2-or-later file under GPLv3-or-later.  That's
> never been the question!
>
> The question is whether you can RELICENSE a GPLv2-or-later file to
> be GPLv3-or-later without needing explicit permission of the copyright
> holder.  To understand the difference, note that:

I do not understand the difference between "redistributing a file
under a GPLv3-or-later license", and distributing it under a license
that is GPLv3-or-later".

Note that you can't necessarily even redistribute under GPL v3 if the
work does not meet the criteria for such a distribution, e.g. it is
Tivoized.
>
>> Also note that just because you receive a work under GPLv2-or-later and
>> distribute it under GPLv3-or-later doesn't necessarily mean that the
>> previous distributor has new obligations.  For example, if you get some
>> GPLv2-or-later source from a distributor that has a tivoized product,
>> you can't distribute that source under GPLv3-or-later and then turn
>> around and ask the previous distributor for Installation Information.
>> They're only on the hook to meet the conditions in one of the licenses
>> they chose, which in this case would be GPLv2.

Well of course not, when A distributes B to C under license D, it is A
who acquires the responsibility and obligations that acrue because of
the distribution.