On Tue, 09 Nov 2010, dmg wrote:

But from a modeling point of view, I see the statement "any newer
version of the license" as a licensing statement that gets
conjuncted to the GPL. In other words, the license is the
concatenation of the clauses of the GPL plus the "any newer version
of the license".

No, it's not. GPLv3 and v2 conflict with each other, so a license
which is the conjunction of both v2 and v3 is nonsensical. There's a
reason why the full language of the recommended licensing clause for
GPL'ed works is

This program is free software: you can redistribute it and/or
modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as
published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the
License, or (at your option) any later version.

not

[...] and any later version.

The use of GPLv2+ and similar terms is just a shorthand to indicate
that you can use the work under one of GPLv2 or GPLv3 (and some later
version of the GPL when/if it comes out).

This is an entirely separate situation from a codebase which forms a
derivative work which has some code under GPLv2 and other code under
GPLv3. [Such a derivative work is generally considered to be
undistributable, because the terms of GPLv2 (§6 and §7) cannot be
satisfied.]


Don Armstrong

--
For a moment, nothing happened. Then, after a second or so, nothing
continued to happen.
-- Douglas Adams

http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu