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

Re: Legal Status of VCG

On Thu, 2005-03-03 at 18:43 +0100, Bas Wijnen wrote:
> Brian M. Carlson wrote:
> > Also, VCG 1.30 (the obfuscated source) contains code which is Copyright
> > Bob Corbett and Richard Stallman and which is licensed under the GPL
> > version 1 or later[2]. Because the code is (at least with the default
> > makefile) copied into the executable, you must distribute *the entire
> > work* under the terms of the GPL version 1 or later. Failing to do so
> > violates Mr. Corbett's and Mr. Stallman's copyright.
> Just a minor point: You suggest that distributing it under GPL 2, or
> "GPL 2 or later", would be a copyright violation.  I do not think that
> this is the case.  The choice of license is for the user.  If the user
> decides to accept only GPL 2, and no other version, then she may
> redistribute it under that version.  This is not actually related to
> acceptance of other versions by the user, but in case of limited
> acceptance it is clear that the user may not even release it under a
> different version, as the license must be accepted to allow redistribution.

I said no such thing. You probably misinterpreted what I said, and I was
probably imprecise. What I meant was: "...you must distribute the entire
work under the terms of the GPL; whatever version you choose is fine, as
long as it the version number is no less than 1." I agree that the
choice of license is for the user, or rather the recipient. If I receive
libfoo under the terms of the GPL version 1 or later, but refuse to
accept the terms of version 1, only version 2, then I can redistribute
libfoo under the terms of version 2. I think we are in agreement, just
that we had a miscommunication.


Reply to: