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

Re: [Lame-dev] LAME license



On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 23:27:36 +0200 Gabriel Bouvigne wrote:

> Reinhard Tartler a écrit :
[...]
>  > Now the member of the ftpteam is concerned that this might be an
>  > additional restriction that is not allowed by the (L)GPLv2.
> 
> LGPLv2 doesn't allow any licensee to set additionnal restrictions. However,
> the original licensor (ie the copyright holder) is always free to set any
> further restriction.
> Thus, to me this license is valid, even if this is not the usual LGPLv2 
> license. (but there is a twist, see below)

I don't agree that the license is valid, since it is
self-contradictory, taking the additional restrictions into account.
Hence, it is likely that no one (but the copyright holder) is legally
authorized to redistribute the work.

For a more detailed analysis of the troubles created by copyright
holders that adopt the (L)GPL, but add further restrictions at the same
time, please see the following thread:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/05/msg00298.html
Especially, please read the reply by RMS:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/05/msg00303.html
and my analysis:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/05/msg00309.html

The cited thread talks about a case where the copyright holder adopted
the GPL while adding further restrictions, but the analysis holds for
the LGPL as well.


-- 
 http://www.inventati.org/frx/progs/scripts/pdebuild-hooks.html
 Need some pdebuild hook scripts?
..................................................... Francesco Poli .
 GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12  31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4

Attachment: pgp1Fu8v29K_o.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: