GPL-2.0 vs GPL-3.0 License
GNU General Public License v2.0 compared with GNU General Public License v3.0: what each licence allows, and whether code under one can be used in a project under the other. Results are generated by the open-source license compatibility checker.
Quick Answer
Compatibility is directional, so both directions are answered separately (distributed software):
GPL-2.0 code in a project licensed under GPL-3.0
Likely IncompatibleUsing GPL-2.0-licensed code in a project under GPL-3.0 is likely incompatible in this scenario, as the licence terms are generally understood.
GPL-2.0-only code cannot be combined into a work under GPL-3.0: GPL-2.0-only requires the whole work under GPL-2.0, while GPL-3.0 requires version 3 terms.
GPL-3.0 code in a project licensed under GPL-2.0
Likely IncompatibleUsing GPL-3.0-licensed code in a project under GPL-2.0 is likely incompatible in this scenario, as the licence terms are generally understood.
GPL-3.0 code cannot be combined into a GPL-2.0-only work: the version 2 and version 3 licences each require the combined work under their own terms.
GPL-2.0-or-later code in a project licensed under GPL-3.0
Compatible With ConditionsUsing GPL-2.0-or-later-licensed code in a project under GPL-3.0 is generally possible if the listed conditions are met.
GPL-2.0-or-later code may be used under GPL-3.0, so it can be combined into a work under GPL-3.0 distributed under version 3 terms.
GPL-3.0 code in a project licensed under GPL-2.0-or-later
Potential ConflictUsing GPL-3.0-licensed code in a project under GPL-2.0-or-later may conflict, depending on how the code is combined, distributed and licensed.
GPL-3.0 code can only be combined with a project under GPL-2.0-or-later if the combined work is distributed under version 3 terms; the project could then no longer be distributed under GPL-2.0 alone.
Key Differences
- Express patent licence: GPL-2.0: no; GPL-3.0: yes.
- Patent termination clause: GPL-2.0: no; GPL-3.0: yes.
Comparison Table
| GPL-2.0 | GPL-3.0 | |
|---|---|---|
| Type | Open source | Open source |
| OSI approved | Yes | Yes |
| Commercial use | Permitted | Permitted |
| Modification | Permitted | Permitted |
| Distribution | Permitted | Permitted |
| Copyleft | Strong | Strong |
| Network-use (SaaS) clause | No | No |
| Source disclosure | Whole distributed work based on it | Whole distributed work based on it |
| Same licence for distributed changes | Yes | Yes |
| Attribution / notices | Yes | Yes |
| Mark modified files | Yes | Yes |
| Express patent licence | No | Yes |
| Patent termination clause | No | Yes |
| Trademark rights granted | Not addressed | Not addressed |
Commercial Use
- GPL-2.0: permitted.
- GPL-3.0: permitted.
- GPL-2.0 code in a project licensed under GPL-3.0: GPL-2.0 permits commercial use. Commercial use, including selling copies, is allowed; the copyleft conditions still apply to how the code is distributed.
- GPL-3.0 code in a project licensed under GPL-2.0: GPL-3.0 permits commercial use. Commercial use, including selling copies, is allowed; the copyleft conditions still apply to how the code is distributed.
Proprietary Software
GPL-2.0 code in closed-source commercial software
Likely IncompatibleUsing GPL-2.0-licensed code in a proprietary project is likely incompatible in this scenario, as the licence terms are generally understood.
If a work based on GPL-2.0 code is distributed, the whole work must be licensed under GPL-2.0 with its complete source available. That is generally incompatible with distributing the project under proprietary terms.
GPL-3.0 code in closed-source commercial software
Likely IncompatibleUsing GPL-3.0-licensed code in a proprietary project is likely incompatible in this scenario, as the licence terms are generally understood.
If a work based on GPL-3.0 code is distributed, the whole work must be licensed under GPL-3.0 with its complete source available. That is generally incompatible with distributing the project under proprietary terms.
- GPL-2.0 code in closed-source commercial software: If a work based on GPL-2.0 code is distributed, the whole work must be licensed under GPL-2.0 with its complete source available. That is generally incompatible with distributing the project under proprietary terms.
- GPL-3.0 code in closed-source commercial software: If a work based on GPL-3.0 code is distributed, the whole work must be licensed under GPL-3.0 with its complete source available. That is generally incompatible with distributing the project under proprietary terms.
SaaS
- Network-use clause: GPL-2.0: no; GPL-3.0: no.
GPL-2.0 code in a closed-source SaaS
Compatible With ConditionsUsing GPL-2.0-licensed code in a proprietary project is generally possible if the listed conditions are met.
GPL-2.0 has no network-use clause: running GPL-2.0 code on your servers to provide a service, without distributing it, generally does not require releasing source. This depends on the code not being distributed.
GPL-3.0 code in a closed-source SaaS
Compatible With ConditionsUsing GPL-3.0-licensed code in a proprietary project is generally possible if the listed conditions are met.
GPL-3.0 has no network-use clause: running GPL-3.0 code on your servers to provide a service, without distributing it, generally does not require releasing source. This depends on the code not being distributed.
- GPL-2.0 code in a closed-source SaaS: GPL-2.0 has no network-use clause: running GPL-2.0 code on your servers to provide a service, without distributing it, generally does not require releasing source. This depends on the code not being distributed.
- GPL-3.0 code in a closed-source SaaS: GPL-3.0 has no network-use clause: running GPL-3.0 code on your servers to provide a service, without distributing it, generally does not require releasing source. This depends on the code not being distributed.
Modification
- GPL-2.0: permitted; modified files must be marked.
- GPL-3.0: permitted; modified files must be marked.
Modifying GPL-2.0 code used in closed-source software
Likely IncompatibleUsing GPL-2.0-licensed code in a proprietary project is likely incompatible in this scenario, as the licence terms are generally understood.
If a work based on GPL-2.0 code is distributed, the whole work must be licensed under GPL-2.0 with its complete source available. That is generally incompatible with distributing the project under proprietary terms.
Modifying GPL-3.0 code used in closed-source software
Likely IncompatibleUsing GPL-3.0-licensed code in a proprietary project is likely incompatible in this scenario, as the licence terms are generally understood.
If a work based on GPL-3.0 code is distributed, the whole work must be licensed under GPL-3.0 with its complete source available. That is generally incompatible with distributing the project under proprietary terms.
- Modifying GPL-2.0 code used in closed-source software: GPL-2.0 permits modification. GPL-2.0 requires modified files to carry notices stating that they were changed.
- Modifying GPL-3.0 code used in closed-source software: GPL-3.0 permits modification. GPL-3.0 requires modified files to carry notices stating that they were changed.
Distribution
- GPL-2.0: permitted.
- GPL-3.0: permitted.
- GPL-2.0 code in a project licensed under GPL-3.0: GPL-2.0-only code cannot be combined into a work under GPL-3.0: GPL-2.0-only requires the whole work under GPL-2.0, while GPL-3.0 requires version 3 terms.
- GPL-3.0 code in a project licensed under GPL-2.0: GPL-3.0 code cannot be combined into a GPL-2.0-only work: the version 2 and version 3 licences each require the combined work under their own terms.
Copyleft
- GPL-2.0: strong copyleft.
- GPL-3.0: strong copyleft.
- GPL-2.0 code in a project licensed under GPL-3.0: GPL-2.0-only code cannot be combined into a work under GPL-3.0: GPL-2.0-only requires the whole work under GPL-2.0, while GPL-3.0 requires version 3 terms.
- GPL-3.0 code in a project licensed under GPL-2.0: GPL-3.0 code cannot be combined into a GPL-2.0-only work: the version 2 and version 3 licences each require the combined work under their own terms.
Source Disclosure
- GPL-2.0: whole distributed work based on it.
- GPL-3.0: whole distributed work based on it.
- GPL-2.0 code in a project licensed under GPL-3.0: When the obligation applies, GPL-2.0 requires making available the complete corresponding source of the whole distributed work based on it.
- GPL-3.0 code in a project licensed under GPL-2.0: When the obligation applies, GPL-3.0 requires making available the complete corresponding source of the whole distributed work based on it.
Attribution
- GPL-2.0: Distribute the whole work based on the program under GPL-2.0.
- GPL-2.0: Provide or offer complete corresponding source code.
- GPL-2.0: Keep copyright and licence notices intact and include the licence.
- GPL-2.0: Mark modified files with notices of changes and dates.
- GPL-3.0: License the whole conveyed work under GPL-3.0.
- GPL-3.0: Provide Corresponding Source when conveying object code.
- GPL-3.0: Keep copyright and licence notices and include the licence.
- GPL-3.0: Mark modified versions with prominent notices of changes.
- GPL-2.0 code in a project licensed under GPL-3.0: GPL-2.0 requires the copyright and licence notices to be kept with copies you distribute.
- GPL-3.0 code in a project licensed under GPL-2.0: GPL-3.0 requires the copyright and licence notices to be kept with copies you distribute.
Patent Considerations
- Express patent licence: GPL-2.0: no; GPL-3.0: yes.
- Patent termination clause: GPL-2.0: no; GPL-3.0: yes.
- GPL-2.0 code in a project licensed under GPL-3.0: GPL-2.0 contains no express patent licence. Any patent permission would depend on implied licence doctrines, which vary by jurisdiction.
- GPL-3.0 code in a project licensed under GPL-2.0: GPL-3.0 includes an express patent licence from contributors. That patent licence terminates for anyone who initiates patent litigation alleging that the work infringes a patent.
Common Scenarios
| Scenario | GPL-2.0 code in a project licensed under GPL-3.0 | GPL-3.0 code in a project licensed under GPL-2.0 |
|---|---|---|
| Use as a dependency / library | Likely Incompatible | Likely Incompatible |
| Copy source code into the project | Likely Incompatible | Likely Incompatible |
| Modify the component | Likely Incompatible | Likely Incompatible |
| SaaS / network service (not distributed) | Compatible With Conditions | Compatible With Conditions |
| Internal / private use only | Generally Compatible | Generally Compatible |
| Resell the software | Likely Incompatible | Likely Incompatible |
| White-label / rebrand | Likely Incompatible | Likely Incompatible |
FAQ
Can I use GPL-2.0 code in a project licensed under GPL-3.0?
Using GPL-2.0-licensed code in a project under GPL-3.0 is likely incompatible in this scenario, as the licence terms are generally understood. GPL-2.0-only code cannot be combined into a work under GPL-3.0: GPL-2.0-only requires the whole work under GPL-2.0, while GPL-3.0 requires version 3 terms.
Can I use GPL-3.0 code in a project licensed under GPL-2.0?
Using GPL-3.0-licensed code in a project under GPL-2.0 is likely incompatible in this scenario, as the licence terms are generally understood. GPL-3.0 code cannot be combined into a GPL-2.0-only work: the version 2 and version 3 licences each require the combined work under their own terms.
Can GPL-2.0-licensed code be used in closed-source commercial software?
Using GPL-2.0-licensed code in a proprietary project is likely incompatible in this scenario, as the licence terms are generally understood. If a work based on GPL-2.0 code is distributed, the whole work must be licensed under GPL-2.0 with its complete source available. That is generally incompatible with distributing the project under proprietary terms.
Can GPL-3.0-licensed code be used in closed-source commercial software?
Using GPL-3.0-licensed code in a proprietary project is likely incompatible in this scenario, as the licence terms are generally understood. If a work based on GPL-3.0 code is distributed, the whole work must be licensed under GPL-3.0 with its complete source available. That is generally incompatible with distributing the project under proprietary terms.
Do I have to publish my source code when I use GPL-2.0 code?
If a work based on GPL-2.0 code is distributed, the whole work must be licensed under GPL-2.0 with its complete source available. That is generally incompatible with distributing the project under proprietary terms.
Do I have to publish my source code when I use GPL-3.0 code?
If a work based on GPL-3.0 code is distributed, the whole work must be licensed under GPL-3.0 with its complete source available. That is generally incompatible with distributing the project under proprietary terms.
Can I use GPL-2.0 code in a closed-source SaaS?
Using GPL-2.0-licensed code in a proprietary project is generally possible if the listed conditions are met. GPL-2.0 has no network-use clause: running GPL-2.0 code on your servers to provide a service, without distributing it, generally does not require releasing source. This depends on the code not being distributed.
Can I use GPL-3.0 code in a closed-source SaaS?
Using GPL-3.0-licensed code in a proprietary project is generally possible if the listed conditions are met. GPL-3.0 has no network-use clause: running GPL-3.0 code on your servers to provide a service, without distributing it, generally does not require releasing source. This depends on the code not being distributed.
Try the Interactive Checker
Change the scenario, say whether the code is modified, distributed or offered as SaaS, and see every rule that applies.
Related Comparisons
Authoritative Sources
- SPDXSPDX License List: GPL-2.0-only
- OSIOpen Source Initiative: GNU General Public License version 2
- Official textGNU GPL v2.0 (official text)
- FAQGNU Project: Frequently Asked Questions about the GNU Licenses
- SPDXSPDX License List: GPL-3.0-only
- OSIOpen Source Initiative: GNU General Public License version 3
- Official textGNU GPL v3.0 (official text)
- FAQGNU Project: GPL FAQ – is GPLv3 compatible with GPLv2?
- FAQGNU Project: GPL FAQ – license compatibility matrix
This tool provides general software licensing information and is not legal advice. License obligations may depend on how software components are combined, modified, distributed and used. For high-risk results, review the actual license text before relying on this result.