On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 17:22:36 +0100 JackTheDipper <gnome-color-chooser@punk-ass-bitch.org> wrote: > > ./src/Makefile.am says its some kind of public domain, while debian/copyright > > says the software is GPL2+... this is the case for many files like this in > > your software. Being offline currently I cannot easily check if this is ok, Public domain code is compatible with the GPL but the reverse is not true. You can include public domain code in any project, free or not. > I created these (and almost all other files) with the gpl utility by the > FSF. In this case I used `gpl -am` to create a properly licensed > Makefile.am .... at least, that is what the gpl tool is supposed to do. If you are the sole copyright holder for these files, it is probably best to use a genuine GPL notice in the file instead. > > ./src/combobox.cc says it's licenced under the GPL2+, while it also says it's > > based on gtkmm's comboboxtext.cc which is licensed under the GNU LGPL - I'm > > not sure you can do that. (Modify a LGPL licenced work and distribute the > > result under the GPL(2+).) Yes, you can. Again, you cannot do the reverse. LGPL is weaker than GPL and combining code into one project migrates all code to the strongest compatible licence. The LGPL and GPL are carefully managed to remain compatible in this manner. > IANAL, but I asked in their chatroom and some of them said that this is ok. > The FSF says: "Every version of the LGPL gives you permission to > relicense the code under the corresponding version, or any later > version, of the GPL. In these cases, you can combine the code if you > migrate its license to GPLv3, and use GPLv3 for your own work as well." > source: http://gplv3.fsf.org/dd3-faq#compat-matrix-footnote-8 Correct. > > And, "btw" this feels strange when reading it: > > # This file is free software; as a special exception the author gives > > # unlimited permission to copy and/or distribute it, with or without > > # modifications, as long as this notice is preserved. > > In my book, it's not a _special exception_ in the free software world to give > > unlimited permission to copy/distribute/modify... :-) > > > heh.. well, this file is just created by the FSF gpl utility. I guess it > means a special exception to a personal copyright and I don't think that > "free software" is a concept of law and implies that exceptions ;-) but > I don't know... i thought that using FSF tools consequently to create > license headers would prevent me from having copyright issues later *sigh* If it's your own file, put a proper GPL notice in place of this. It does sound unnecessary. > > ./po/id.po and other should explicitly state that they are GPL2+ licenced and > > not just refer to the software licence. > > > ok, that will be changed with the next upstream version if this is ok. Usually, all po files just say "released under the same licence as the package itself". -- Neil Williams ============= http://www.data-freedom.org/ http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/ http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
Attachment:
pgpddbfxQqAJJ.pgp
Description: PGP signature