Olive <not0read0765@yopmail.com> wrote:
MJ Ray <mjr@phonecoop.coop> wrote:
> I don't see why authors of derived works have to grant the additional
> permissions. Where is that requirement?
To distribute derivative works you need a license (otherwise it is a
copyright infringement). The way it is presented is not you have all
the right from the LGPL + additional permission but the license is the
following FLTK license which consists of a modified LGPL license. The
additional permissions make part of the license.
Sorry, but I currently disagree with that view. Who is Olive?
Any derivative work is covered by the FLTK license and that include the
additional permissions. It is my understanding that you cannot change
the license at all unless it is explicitly permitted and I do not find
this permission (I think this is the reason that when the FSF give
extra permission, as it sometimes do, it clearly states you can remove
the extra permission; otherwise the same problem would occurs).
Sometimes FSF software did not state that you can remove the extra
permission, such as libgcj's licence of March 7, 2000, or the old
Qt exception suggestion which can be seen at
http://web.archive.org/web/20000301061029/http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/license-list.html
Does anyone know that the removal statement was required and not just
a clarification?