Re: elilo-installer copyright status
- To: Peter Rock <gnuosphere@gmail.com>
- Cc: debian-boot@lists.debian.org, dannf@debian.org, bdale@debian.org, rhirst@debian.org, Jim Lieb <lieb@wildopensource.com>, bubulle@debian.org
- Subject: Re: elilo-installer copyright status
- From: Colin Watson <cjwatson@debian.org>
- Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2007 10:47:57 +0100
- Message-id: <[🔎] 20070930094757.GU13244@riva.ucam.org>
- Mail-followup-to: Peter Rock <gnuosphere@gmail.com>, debian-boot@lists.debian.org, dannf@debian.org, bdale@debian.org, rhirst@debian.org, Jim Lieb <lieb@wildopensource.com>, bubulle@debian.org
- In-reply-to: <[🔎] c684553f0709300121n3df67961v87cab3984da018e6@mail.gmail.com>
- References: <[🔎] c684553f0709282046pb22882fw286d1a03c0be9516@mail.gmail.com> <[🔎] 20070929070836.GA28912@kitenet.net> <[🔎] c684553f0709300121n3df67961v87cab3984da018e6@mail.gmail.com>
On Sun, Sep 30, 2007 at 04:21:33PM +0800, Peter Rock wrote:
> On 9/29/07, Joey Hess <joeyh@debian.org> wrote:
> > Bdale is the original author of elilo-installer, although it's derived
> > from lilo-installer. [...]
> > Since lilo-installer is licensed under the GPL version 2 or later, I
> > suggest it's sanest for elilo-installer to have the same license.
>
> If elilo-installer is derived from lilo-installer which is under
> GPLv2, this means elilo-installer must be under GPLv2 as per the
> copyleft requirement of the GPL. IANAL but that's my understanding.
I think everyone on this list is aware of how copyleft works. I suspect
Joey meant that it was sanest for it also to be under "GPL v2 or later"
rather than "GPL v2 only" or "GPL v3 only" or "GPL v3 or later", all of
which would be allowed.
--
Colin Watson [cjwatson@debian.org]
Reply to: