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

Re: Artistic and LGPL compatibility in jar files



In message <[🔎] 9f4091d0c9afc9ede2ecc519bd6830bb.cherepan@mccme.ru>, Alexander Cherepanov <cherepan@mccme.ru> 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
got.

I pass your code and GPLv3, there is no requirement to pass your full
license grant.

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.

Cheers,
Wol
--
Anthony W. Youngman - anthony@thewolery.demon.co.uk


Reply to: