Re: GPL "+" question
Miriam Ruiz <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> So in my opinion, if you modify a code which was released under GPL2+
> and you license your modifications as GPL3+, the resulting work has to
> also be GPL, and the terms or conditions that apply are those of the
> version 3 of the lincense, or later, but you're not effectively
> relicensing the code that is not yours, so that part would be still
> licensed as GPL2+ by the author and copyright holder.
I may give to others the permission to use the modified/redistributed
file under GPL-3+. This permission is what is usually called "License".
In that sense, the license is changed.
> So if you later removed the part of code that was covered by a
> different license, the resulting code would be still under the
> original license,
The license is usually granted to a file as a whole, not to specific
lines. If got got a changed file from me, and you revert my changes,
then you are still bound to the conditions that we agreed about when you
got the file -- these conditions are the "license". If we agreed on
GPL-3, then you are bound to GPL-3.
> because you were never the copyright holder, and you never had
> permission to relicense it. I seriously doubt that any judge would
> rule otherwise.
Just again this example:
This is a file that is initially copyrighted by Daniel Boulet (and
licensed under BSD-2-Clause). However, without any other change, it also
has the header
| Copyright (c) 2000-2007 Apple Inc. All rights reserved.
| This file contains Original Code and/or Modifications of Original Code
| as defined in and that are subject to the Apple Public Source License
| Version 2.0 (the 'License'). You may not use this file except [...]
So, Apple puts another license to this file, probably without having the
permission of Daniel Boulet.
Would you accept such a file in Debian? It is clearly not BSD-licensed,
even if an unchanged BSD-licensed version exists.
When trusting the Apple Lawyers a bit, then this contradicts your