Re: GPL/LGPL confusion
On Thu, Jul 05, 2001 at 08:54:56PM +0200, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
> I didn't "chose" to "ignore" "This". I avoided quoting a large chunk
> of text that didn't relate directly to my question.
Hmm.. but you didn't give me a good enough of an idea of what you did
understand to let me pin down what it was that you wanted elaborated.
However, you've given me a pretty solid idea this time around, so I
think I understand what you're asking.
> Since you want everything spelled out: can you explain what do you
> mean by "the false idea that one must be the copyright owner on the
> components of a derived or compiled work in order to ensure that the
> the entirety of that work is available under some license terms",
> please? I'm obviously missing some subtle point since you seem to be
> saying that this is false in general.
 you're not the copyright owner for some code
 you want to use that code in a GPLed program you're working on.
Now, if the terms of the license on that code meet the requirements of
the GPL, ensuring that the code is available under those terms is a no-op.
On the other hand, if the terms of the license on that code do not meet
the requirements of the GPL, then ensuring that the code is available
under those terms requires dealing with the copyright holder. It's true
that one solution, in this case, involves a legal agreement with the old
copyright holder, making you the new copyright holder -- then you can
release the code under whatever terms you like. A more common solution
involves the copyright holder making the code available under a mutually