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

Re: Bug#523093: undetermined copyright/license violation

On Thu, Apr 09, 2009 at 11:47:14AM +0200, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
> Robert Millan wrote:
>>> For an example, if a program has three authors, one of whom uses BSD, 
>>>  the second uses "LGPL 2.1 or later" and the third uses "GPL 3" then 
>>> the  Venn Intersect is GPL 3, which is the licence that applies to 
>>> the work  as a whole. However, any recipient is at full liberty to 
>>> strip out parts  of the work, and use whatever licence the author 
>>> granted.
>> Yeah, I understand the combined result is GPLv3;  the only doubt I have is
>> whether it's necessary to explicitly mention each license.
> The combined result is different/new work (with a own license), but
> derived from other works. Don't confuse single file with combined results.
> But every file has author(s) and license(s), which are replaceable only
> by authors. LGPL allow you to use LGPL as a GPL license, but not
> to change it.


> If you add new function to a LGPL file, and your changes are GPL only,
> *practically* the file is only GPL, but the original code is still LGPL,
> so better to explicit write also the LGPL.

Sounds reasonable.  Hubert, can we do that?  Let me know if I can help.

> (or better: use an other
> file for your changes: one license per file)

I think splitting the files can be cumbersome.  I wouldn't do it unless
strictly necessary.

Robert Millan

  The DRM opt-in fallacy: "Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and
  how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we
  still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all."

Reply to: