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

Re: GPL "+" question

That's literally what I said.

d/copyright is for source not binary.

On May 29, 2015 8:42 AM, "Riley Baird" <BM-2cVqnDuYbAU5do2DfJTrN7ZbAJ246S4Xix@bitmessage.ch> wrote:
> > I just had a discussion with an ftp-master who rejected one of my
> > packages. The package in question is "missfits". It contains a
> > directory, src/wcs/ with files that were originally released by Mark
> > Calabretta under LGPL-2+, but changed by the upstream author (Emmanuel
> > Bertin) and released in the package under GPL-3+.
> Upstream authors can't change licensing of any files, under any
> conditions, ever.
> If I say a file is GPLv2+, it is forever GPLv2+, even if it's combined
> with a GPLv3 work, in that case the *files* are still GPLv2+, that other
> file is a GPLv3 work, and the *combined work* is distributed under the
> terms of the GPLv3, since it satisfies the license of every file in the
> combined / derived work.

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.

Reply to: