Re: Artistic and LGPL compatibility in jar files
In message <[🔎] firstname.lastname@example.org>,
Alexander Cherepanov <email@example.com> writes
Basically, you can choose which licence you want to apply to YOU. But
you pass on my package as a whole (including my permission to choose
which licence). So that's where your recipients get the same choices you
I pass your code and GPLv3, there is no requirement to pass your full
Just spotted something important :-)
WITHOUT MY COPYING FILE your recipient has no evidence that the GPLv3
bears any relevance to my code. You've just stripped all licencing from
my code and that MOST DEFINITELY IS a pretty blatant GPL violation!
So to sum up, the GPL (whatever variant) is meaningless on its own.
Passing the code on without my licencing grant is a GPL violation. And
the GPL does NOT give you permission to change my grant.
My grant does give you the right to choose which licence applies to YOU.
In fact, as I said elsewhere, you HAVE TO CHOOSE A SPECIFIC licence to
apply to you. If you choosing a specific licence stripped your
recipients' right to choose which licence applied to them, there would
be no point to the "or any later version" wording because that would be
invalid for any recipient beyond the first person to get it direct from
the copyright holder.
Anthony W. Youngman - firstname.lastname@example.org