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

Re: package xsok

On Fri, Dec 31, 2004 at 06:28:57PM +0100, Erik Schanze wrote:
> Hi Justin!
> Justin Pryzby <justinpryzby@users.sourceforge.net>:
> > On Fri, Dec 31, 2004 at 02:33:46PM +0100, Erik Schanze wrote:
> > > Carlos Parra Camargo <carlospc@gmail.com>:
> > >- Contained XPMs stand under BSD-like license, not GPL, see ./etc/COPYRIGHT.xpm
> > >I think copyright file should reflect this, although relicensing (under GPL) 
> >                                                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >  * The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in
> >                               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >  * all copies or substantial portions of the Software.
> > 
> And what about the sentence above:
> "* deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the
>  * rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, ..."
> > I don't think its okay to just stick it with a different license
> > notice, if that's what you mean.
> > 
> Isn't this covered by "sublicense", is it?
I would differentiate between "sublicense" and "relicense".  You want
to relicense the xpm's; that is, to apply a difference license.  And
it only makes sense that you can do so if you are the copyright holder
(or of the original license grants you that permission, which IMHO
doesn't make sense, because that also gives you permission to add and
remove rights and restrictions from the original license).

To me, the right to sublicense means: "You can give other people this
software *under this license*."

On a related thought, the GPL uses the phrase "under the terms of this
License".  To be strict, software derived from GPL software doesn't
have to be released under "the GPL", just on functionally equivalent
terms (for example, the hypothetical "ZZZ" license, which is a
verbatim copy of the GPL).


Happy y2k5,

Reply to: