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

Re: GPL3 compatible?

Ludovico Cavedon <cavedon@debian.org> writes:

> The statement does not explicitly state that modifications are
> allowed,

Yes. “may be used” is so vague as to be useless for these purposes, IMO.
It certainly doesn't grant permission to redistribute modified versions
of the work.

> but just says that the code is "freely distributable".

It is also self-contradictory; the “All rights reserved.” should IMO be
removed from any license text, since some rights are explicitly *not*
being reserved.

> Moreover the upstream author of RawTherapee re-licensed the file under
> GPL3 (keeping the above statement, but adding a GPL3 header). AFAIK he
> cannot do that, but the file has to keep only its original license...
> correct?

Right. The license statement as you present it does not grant anyone
permission to redistribute modified versions, nor to re-license the work
to other recipients, both of which would be needed for that change to be

The apparent intent of the author would be well served by the
widely-understood and wholly free-software Expat license terms
<URL:http://www.jclark.com/xml/copying.txt>. As it stands, only the
copyright holders in the work can make that change.

 \        “When in doubt tell the truth. It will confound your enemies |
  `\   and astound your friends.” —Mark Twain, _Following the Equator_ |
_o__)                                                                  |
Ben Finney

Attachment: pgpO2ZubmywUQ.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: