Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Thu, 21 Oct 2004, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: >> It is true that Debian's license to the original works persists. >> But we won't have a license to the derivative work, because the >> upstream author didn't have the right to prepare that work, much >> less license it. > > Assuming the upstream author has properly licensed upstream's > contributions under the GPL, we can distribute those contributions so > long as we comply with the terms of the GPL. [There is an argument > that the upstream author can't actually distribute upstream's > contributions under the GPL, but I'd suggest that even if this is the > case, if we can comply with the GPL, we should be able to distribute > it ourselves.] > > The other licenses that are granted under GPL ยง6 come directly from > the original licensor, not via the intermediate(s) (in this case, > upstream.) Thus, we have valid GPL licenses for all parts of the > derivative work.
If it were a compilation, that would be fine. But in many cases -- including this one, I think -- it's not. We have a license to the original work from the original author, and to the derivative work from the upstream. But the original author also has a copyright on the derivative work, and we have no license to it from him. -Brian -- Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]