Re: GPL "+" question
Paul Tagliamonte <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> 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.
> 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.
Same for me. However: the (L)GPL allows even an unmodified
redistribution under a later license. It is up to upstream to decide
whether he chooses the original or a later one. And since I take these
files from upstream, not from the original author, I am bound to his
decision, independently whether the files are modified or not.
Therefore, if he chooses to redistribute the files in src/wcs/ under
GPL-3+, than this is the license for these file, and it should be
documented as such under debian/copyright. And in this case, the
redistribution under a GPL-3+ is clear (by adding the according
statement to the file headers).
> 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.
The reason here is not modification (although it makes this case clear),
but redistribution. Upstream has chosen to redistribute the files under
GPL-3+, and if we want to use these files, we have to respect this.