[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

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?

Robert Millan

  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."

Reply to: