Re: Bug#523093: undetermined copyright/license violation
On Wed, Apr 08, 2009 at 08:30:30PM +0100, Jo Shields wrote:
> > If there's a problem, we'll get it sorted out, but I need more specific
> > info on your findings; the example you pasted shows a file with nor
> > copyright statement neither license information (from tomboy) and one
> > with both of them (in gnote). Please tell me which of these (in your
> > judgement) apply:
> > - The new file seems to be asserting copyright for the code as
> > a whole, and it's not implicitly understood that it only applies
> > to the originality added to it by rewriting in C++.
> > (this is somewhat contentious, since there are examples of other
> > programs doing the same, but it can be fixed by adding a clarification
> > to each file)
> > - The new license (GPL v3) is incompatible with LGPL v2.1
> > (it's not; see section 13 of the LGPL v2.1)
> > - There are copyright/license statements being replaced, elsewhere in
> > the code.
> > (if this is so, please give some example)
> > - Something else.
> > (be my guest)
> the copyright header in the
> file is clearly asserting that the file is 100% copyrighted by Hubert
> Figuiere when it's not.
> And so on. "* Copyright (C) 2009 Hubert Figuiere" is simply false,
Alright. So, I understand you mean option 1 (see my paragraph starting
with "The new file seems to be asserting..." above).
Unless there's a clear consensus in -legal that this is not a problem, I
will assume it is. I'm fine with extra clarification, for the sake of
correctness, it just means a bit more work. I'll speak with the gnote
author about it.
> and a
> clear violation of Tomboy's license.
Notice license and copyright statements are two separate issues. AFAIK
LGPL doesn't explicitly require that a license notice is preserved mixing
code with other licenses like the BSD license does, but I could be mistaken.
Any advice on this from -legal?
The DRM opt-in fallacy: "Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and
how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we
still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all."