GPL version issue

[Gregor Richards]

Brad Roberts wrote:
> On Mon, 1 May 2006, Gregor Richards wrote:
> 
> 
>>The code in dmd/src/dmd is licensed as follows:
>>
>>// License for redistribution is by either the Artistic License
>>// in artistic.txt, or the GNU General Public License in gnu.txt.
>>
>>This is problematic because:
>>
>>1) There is no file named gnu.txt
>>2) The file gpl.txt includes the ancient GPL v1, and never is it explicitly
>>stated that you may use later versions.
>>
>>(By the way, Walter, do you use Perl? ;) )
>>
>>This is a problem because it may be implied that you can only release the DMD
>>frontend under version 1 one of the license, in which case I'm fairly sure
>>that GDC isn't even legal :).  I'm sure the intention was to release it under
>>any version of the GPL.
> 
> 
> I'm not a lawyer, nor do I intend to play one on tv, but given the dual 
> license, even if gpl1 and 2 are incompatible, artistic and gpl2 aren't, so 
> there's nothing illegal about gd.c.
> 
> Later,
> Brad

According to GNU's license list (read: FLAME WAR TIME WOOOH DFSG vs GNU 
vs OSI), the original artistic license is neither compatible with the 
GPL nor even concrete enough to be considered a Free Software license.

  - Gregor Richards

Reference: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html