Re: Combining GPL and BSD/CeCILL/whatever
Jarno Elonen <elonen@debian.org> wrote:
> This doesn't specify which parts were originally under which license but 1) it
> would be impossible anyway given that they're all mingled and 2) does it
> really matter as GPL insists licensing the whole bunch under GPL?
Yes, it does matter, as you are licensing the copyright attached to
the parts, not the (no longer distinguishable) parts.
> The downside of this scheme (if it's allowed at all?) is that people who want
> to reuse some of the code have to copy both license texts, too, and in
> theory, the list may just grow and grow as time goes by.
I believe that this is one of the motives for GPL requiring you to
document your changes, so that your copyright assertion can actually
be removed when your copyright is no longer relevant to the work.
So, the GPL is actually a (copyleft) case of a licence that can avoid
drag-on.
Never mind a GPL FAQ, we need a GPL expose. The licence is actually
smarter than some programmers realise. Many people see why they
disagree, but it feels like not as many see the wise bits. :-/
--
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Subscribed to this list. No need to Cc, thanks.
Reply to: