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

Re: Bug#523093: undetermined copyright/license violation

On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 08:41:08AM +0200, Giacomo Catenazzi wrote:
> Maybe taking derived code (e.g. including new code), one could write only
> the license of aggregate work (thus one "later" license),

I think so.  I agree it could be better to list them explicitly, but
upstream doesn't want that.  Then again, see what I said in:


> but I think:
> 1- the old code is still "2 or later"

It is.  Though, it is impractical to split it off the file that contains
mixed licenses.  But there's no need to either, people wanting the old code
can take it from Tomboy (assuming patent liability is not a problem for

> 2- it is better not to mix licenses in one file, so it is better
>    to add new code or with the same license or in an extra file
>    (no problem removing part of old file)
> 3- Debian should allow the more liberal license as possible,
>    thus maintaining the option to use the "old" license terms.

We already discussed about whether it's "good" or not to upgrade licenses or
to mix different GPL versions in the same file, in a separate thread in
-legal.  I gave my personal opinion there.  Btw the license change comes from
upstream, not Debian.  It's obvious Hubert has his own reasons for doing it,
but whichever they are they're off-topic here.

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: