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

Re: ldp-es_20002103-7_i386.changes REJECTED

On Mon, Oct 28, 2002 at 12:02:57PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > Note that translations do not share the same copyright as the original works.
> So what?

	That if there is a file stating the copyright of the original
work that's moot.

> [...]
> > In this case (this package) some documents might hold different licenses that
> > *do not* apply to this package. Only the GPL does.
> No, if any part of the package has a copyright license that is not
> DFSG-free, the package is not DFSG-free.  Contrary to popular delusion
> and FUD, the GPL does not supersede the licensing on any work (unless
> the person who holds the copyright on a work says so).

	Are you talking about documentation? James pointed out that
the original work in which ldp-es is based is not DFSG-free and,
sincerely, that's not an issue at all. Iff the author authorised a 
translation, the translation *can* be published under a different
license (DFSG free in the case) since the copyright holder is not the
original author, it's the translator.

	Have I made it clear now? Does anyone disagree?



Attachment: pgpCgz7UXLEjF.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: