Re: Bug#523093: undetermined copyright/license violation

[Robert Millan <rmh@aybabtu.com>]

On Thu, Apr 09, 2009 at 10:27:19PM -0500, Adam Majer wrote:
> 
> License and copyright are one and the same.
> 
> GPL license relies on copyright law, just like almost any other open
> source license there is, be it BSD, Artistic or LGPL. Without copyright,
> the license is meaningless. Without license, you have no right to the
> source code.

Thanks for the explanation;  but I think what you mean is they're dependant
on each other.  This doesn't imply they're the same thing though.

I think we all agree the "Copyright" lines, whenever they were present, need
to be preserved.  The license bits in general too, but what happens when the
license terms explicitly give you permission to relicense?

I gave this example in another mail (sorry if I sound redundant);  my
understanding is that in "2 or later" terms in a GPLv2+ header the license
version can be updated by recipients of the code, and that keeping the old
license blob around is not a must;  is this correct?  Does section 12 of LGPL
2.1 work the same way?  If not, where's the difference?

-- 
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."