Re: Legal Status of VCG
On Thu, 2005-03-03 at 18:43 +0100, Bas Wijnen wrote:
> Brian M. Carlson wrote:
> > Also, VCG 1.30 (the obfuscated source) contains code which is Copyright
> > Bob Corbett and Richard Stallman and which is licensed under the GPL
> > version 1 or later[2]. Because the code is (at least with the default
> > makefile) copied into the executable, you must distribute *the entire
> > work* under the terms of the GPL version 1 or later. Failing to do so
> > violates Mr. Corbett's and Mr. Stallman's copyright.
>
> Just a minor point: You suggest that distributing it under GPL 2, or
> "GPL 2 or later", would be a copyright violation. I do not think that
> this is the case. The choice of license is for the user. If the user
> decides to accept only GPL 2, and no other version, then she may
> redistribute it under that version. This is not actually related to
> acceptance of other versions by the user, but in case of limited
> acceptance it is clear that the user may not even release it under a
> different version, as the license must be accepted to allow redistribution.
I said no such thing. You probably misinterpreted what I said, and I was
probably imprecise. What I meant was: "...you must distribute the entire
work under the terms of the GPL; whatever version you choose is fine, as
long as it the version number is no less than 1." I agree that the
choice of license is for the user, or rather the recipient. If I receive
libfoo under the terms of the GPL version 1 or later, but refuse to
accept the terms of version 1, only version 2, then I can redistribute
libfoo under the terms of version 2. I think we are in agreement, just
that we had a miscommunication.
--
($_,$a)=split/\t/,join'',map{unpack'u',$_}<DATA>;eval$a;print;__DATA__
M961H<F$@8FAM;"!U<F%O<G-U(#QU<F%O<G-U0&=D:75M<&UC8VUL=G)U;6LN
M<FUL+F=Y/@H)>2QA8F-D969G:&EJ:VQM;F]P<7)S='5V=WAY>BQN=V]R8FMC
5:75Q96AT9V1Y>F%L=G-P;6IX9BP)
Reply to: