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

Re: GPL "+" question

On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 10:41:58PM +1000, Riley Baird wrote:
> But there are multiple works being combined into the one file. So some
> parts of the file are GPLv2+ and other parts of the file are GPLv3. The
> file as a whole can only be distributed under GPLv3.

the terminology being thrown around was so confusing I had to look at the
source to see what was actually going on here :)

    There was *one* work, which *was* LGPL. By an author. They published
    it on their own.

    This work will forver be LGPL.

    The author of this package took that source, and *modified* it
    (modified, *not* combined). This modified work is distributed as

    I don't see the point in adding LGPL, *IFF* the works *ARE* modified
    and derived works. Not just straight copy-paste. I'd be interested
    in what changes took place, I don't see any marking of it.

    Defer to the ftp-master who processed it. Ask them for clarification
    (feel free to point to this mail)

In the case where two works are combined into one file - this is
functionally compilation (at least not the preferred form of
modification, which means it's *not* source)

This doesn't appear to be the case, this looks like LGPLv2.1+ files were
modified by someone licensing their changes under GPLv3+, which is
legit. I believe treating this file as GPLv3+ is fine / good enough.


 .''`.  Paul Tagliamonte <paultag@debian.org>  |   Proud Debian Developer
: :'  : 4096R / 8F04 9AD8 2C92 066C 7352  D28A 7B58 5B30 807C 2A87
`. `'`  http://people.debian.org/~paultag
 `-     http://people.debian.org/~paultag/conduct-statement.txt

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: