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

Re: Bug#523093: undetermined copyright/license violation

Robert Millan wrote:
>> And so on. "* Copyright (C) 2009 Hubert Figuiere" is simply false,
> Alright.  So, I understand you mean option 1 (see my paragraph starting
> with "The new file seems to be asserting..." above).
> Unless there's a clear consensus in -legal that this is not a problem, I
> will assume it is.  I'm fine with extra clarification, for the sake of
> correctness, it just means a bit more work.  I'll speak with the gnote
> author about it.
>> and a
>> clear violation of Tomboy's license.
> Notice license and copyright statements are two separate issues.  AFAIK
> LGPL doesn't explicitly require that a license notice is preserved mixing
> code with other licenses like the BSD license does, but I could be mistaken.
> Any advice on this from -legal?

License and copyright are one and the same.

GPL license relies on copyright law, just like almost any other open
source license there is, be it BSD, Artistic or LGPL. Without copyright,
the license is meaningless. Without license, you have no right to the
source code.

There is no contract or patent licenses here.

- Adam

Reply to: