Re: Bug#523093: undetermined copyright/license violation
On Wed, Apr 08, 2009 at 11:42:33PM +0100, Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
> Each author *should*, as a matter of *courtesy*, explicitly mention the
> licence in all of their files,
Yes, I agree, in general, but it's still not clear to me that section 12 of
LGPL can't be interpreted as "you can put a single GPL header" just like
"2 or later" in a GPLv2+ header can be interpreted as "you can update the
version number and use a single header".
What would be the difference?
> and *should* *not* use a different
> licence when modifying a different author's original files.
That depends on whether the original author chose license terms that would
allow this. In this case they did.
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."