Re: Bug#523093: undetermined copyright/license violation
I reply to this separately, because it's quite off-topic and unrelated
to the problem at hand. I don't want to add noise to the wnpp log.
On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 09:37:22AM +0100, Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
> THAT is why it is downright
> offensive to change the licence on minor modifications to someone else's
It is not. The author chose a license that explicitly allows this,
in section 12, because they didn't want to prevent the license from
being upgraded by third parties. This is precisely what is happening.
> legal result may not matter when mixing licences. But the Free Software
> world places the SPIRIT of the grant much higher than the letter
The spirit of LGPL (or GPL for that matter) never intended to allow use of
patents as a means to impose a tax on software covered by the license, and
Novell is doing exactly that. Looks like fair play to me.
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."