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
>> 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
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."