Re: Is mpage DFSG compatible?
Ben Finney writes ("Re: Is mpage DFSG compatible?"):
> Eriberto Mota <eriberto@debian.org> writes:
> > Well, I need your opinions about what to do. Should be this package
> > moved to non-free? Must it be removed? Am I wrong?
>
> The ‘CHANGES’ file contains an entry under “October 2002”:
>
> October 2002
> - Released version 2.5.3
> - Start moving mapge into the GPL...
Can we tell who wrote that ? If the author of the questionable file
is also the author of the changelog entry, and also added a copy of
the relevant GPL, then that seems to me to be a clear statement of
intent, which is what is necessary.
> This at least suggests the upstream developer at the time of that entry
> intended to explicitly change the license of the whole work to GNU
> General Public License.
>
> You could contact the upstream copyright holder, cite that changelog
> entry, and request they follow the instructions in GNU GPL v3 to
> effectively grant license for every part of the work to all recipients.
It would be fine to contact the relevant copyright holder.
> There needs to be an explicit written grant of license to the recipient,
> preferably in the work itself and not conflicting with any other
> notices (so those conflicting notices should be removed by the copyright
> holder who wrote them).
A copyright licence does not need to be in writing. (In the UK, at
least[1], and I would be surprised it if were different elsewhere.)
Of course in practice it is a good idea to have a clear and explicit
statement, in writing, but that doesn't mean that a license can't be
implied (or oral, for that matter).
Ian.
[1] I don't have a concrete reference for this, but it is clear at
least from the way that parts of the CDPA 1988 (for example
101A(1)(b)(i)) makes an explicit condition that the licence is in
writing.
Reply to: