Hi,
I just had a discussion with an ftp-master who rejected one of my
packages. The package in question is missfits. It contains a
directory, src/wcs/ with files that were originally released by Mark
Calabretta under LGPL-2+, but changed by the upstream author (Emmanuel
Bertin) and released in
Hi Debian legal,
I am investigating two files in the Lazarus source with the following
two licenses. I am wondering what you make of this (mostly wondering
about clause 3 of the first license and clause 1 of the second). My
interpretation of this is that they are non-DFSG, but I am also aware
On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 09:32:12AM +0200, Ole Streicher wrote:
Hi,
I just had a discussion with an ftp-master who rejected one of my
packages. The package in question is missfits. It contains a
directory, src/wcs/ with files that were originally released by Mark
Calabretta under LGPL-2+,
Maximilian maximil...@actoflaw.co.uk writes:
and this seems to imply that the end user can choose which licence
suits them.
Not only the end user -- also (in our case) the upstream author. So, he
can choose to redistribute the files under GPL-3+. Being them modified
or not.
However, if
That's literally what I said.
d/copyright is for source not binary.
On May 29, 2015 8:42 AM, Riley Baird
bm-2cvqnduybau5do2dfjtrn7zbaj246s4...@bitmessage.ch wrote:
I just had a discussion with an ftp-master who rejected one of my
packages. The package in question is missfits. It contains
Paul Tagliamonte paul...@debian.org writes:
On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 09:32:12AM +0200, Ole Streicher wrote:
Hi,
I just had a discussion with an ftp-master who rejected one of my
packages. The package in question is missfits. It contains a
directory, src/wcs/ with files that were originally
I'm probably wrong, but the code that was originally GPLv2+ remains licensed
under the GPLv2 *in addition* to the GPLv3 that the overall package is licensed
under.
The GPLv2 states that:
'if the Program specifies a version number of this License which applies to it
and any later version, you
Paul Tagliamonte paul...@debian.org writes:
On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 10:41:58PM +1000, Riley Baird wrote:
But there are multiple works being combined into the one file. So some
parts of the file are GPLv2+ and other parts of the file are GPLv3. The
file as a whole can only be distributed under
I just had a discussion with an ftp-master who rejected one of my
packages. The package in question is missfits. It contains a
directory, src/wcs/ with files that were originally released by Mark
Calabretta under LGPL-2+, but changed by the upstream author (Emmanuel
Bertin) and released in
I just had a discussion with an ftp-master who rejected one of my
packages. The package in question is missfits. It contains a
directory, src/wcs/ with files that were originally released by Mark
Calabretta under LGPL-2+, but changed by the upstream author (Emmanuel
Bertin) and released
On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 10:41:58PM +1000, Riley Baird wrote:
But there are multiple works being combined into the one file. So some
parts of the file are GPLv2+ and other parts of the file are GPLv3. The
file as a whole can only be distributed under GPLv3.
the terminology being thrown around
If I say a file is GPLv2+, it is forever GPLv2+, even if it's combined
with a GPLv3 work, in that case the *files* are still GPLv2+, that other
file is a GPLv3 work, and the *combined work* is distributed under the
terms of the GPLv3, since it satisfies the license of every file in the
On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 03:09:34PM +0200, Ole Streicher wrote:
Same for me. However: the (L)GPL allows even an unmodified
redistribution under a later license.
This is key -- redistribution. It doesn't change the license. If I get
this file after you say it's GPLv3, it's still LGPLv2.1+ to me
Or a CLA. Or breaking copyright law. Or modified the work and distribute
it under a superset of the old terms. Or or or :)
For the record; I don't believe Apple is breaking copyright law, and I
didn't mean to imply that :)
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 04:06:52PM +0200, Ole Streicher wrote:
Paul Tagliamonte paul...@debian.org writes:
On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 03:09:34PM +0200, Ole Streicher wrote:
Same for me. However: the (L)GPL allows even an unmodified
redistribution under a later license.
This is key --
Paul Tagliamonte paul...@debian.org writes:
No, you may redistribute it under different terms, *not* relicense. You may
*use* GPLv2+ as GPLv3+, *BUT* the original work is *STILL* GPLv2+, since
you can't relicense works.
Sorry, but I still think release under the terms of the General Public
Miriam Ruiz mir...@debian.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
Paul Tagliamonte paul...@debian.org writes:
I don't know any jurisdiction where I can take a work of yours and now
claim I have the rights to it under a different license.
Apple did, as I have shown. I think they have good lawyers.
Best
Ole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 05:43:21PM +0200, Ole Streicher wrote:
Paul Tagliamonte paul...@debian.org writes:
I don't know any jurisdiction where I can take a work of yours and now
claim I have the rights to it under a different license.
Apple did, as I have shown. I think they have good
On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 05:11:12PM +0200, Ole Streicher wrote:
Again: please provide a reference for this. The copyright holder has
surely the initial right to license his work, but I don't see a reason
why he can't transfer this.
Via copyright asignment, not licensing, unless the license
2015-05-29 16:06 GMT+02:00 Ole Streicher oleb...@debian.org:
Paul Tagliamonte paul...@debian.org writes:
On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 03:09:34PM +0200, Ole Streicher wrote:
Same for me. However: the (L)GPL allows even an unmodified
redistribution under a later license.
This is key --
Please end this thread, it's getting nuts. Ask the FSF if you're still unclear.
Thanks,
Paul
On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 11:41 AM, Paul Tagliamonte paul...@debian.org wrote:
On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 05:11:12PM +0200, Ole Streicher wrote:
Again: please provide a reference for this. The copyright
On 29/05/15 16:30, Ole Streicher wrote:
Miriam Ruiz mir...@debian.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
Le Fri, May 29, 2015 at 09:32:12AM +0200, Ole Streicher a écrit :
I just had a discussion with an ftp-master who rejected one of my
packages. The package in question is missfits. It contains a
directory, src/wcs/ with files that were originally released by Mark
Calabretta under LGPL-2+, but
On Sat, 30 May 2015 10:46:04 +0900
Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org wrote:
Le Sat, May 30, 2015 at 11:26:59AM +1000, Riley Baird a écrit :
- 3. You may not have any income from distributing this source
-(or altered version of it) to other developers. When You
-use this product
Only the copyright holder can change what a *work* is licensed as.
Unless the copyright holder grants the permission to do so, I would
say...
Let's say I hold copyright on a work, and I grant someone else
permission to change the license of a work. Who would enforce the
second license?
- 3. You may not have any income from distributing this source
-(or altered version of it) to other developers. When You
-use this product in a comercial package, the source may
-not be charged seperatly.
This clause is really annoying, but it seems to allow the file to be
Le Sat, May 30, 2015 at 11:26:59AM +1000, Riley Baird a écrit :
- 3. You may not have any income from distributing this source
-(or altered version of it) to other developers. When You
-use this product in a comercial package, the source may
-not be charged seperatly.
Paul Tagliamonte paul...@debian.org writes:
On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 03:09:34PM +0200, Ole Streicher wrote:
Same for me. However: the (L)GPL allows even an unmodified
redistribution under a later license.
This is key -- redistribution. It doesn't change the license.
It does. Just look into the
On Fri, 29 May 2015 14:12:51 +0200 Paul Gevers wrote:
Hi Debian legal,
Hello Paul,
thanks for taking these freeness issues seriously.
I am investigating two files in the Lazarus source with the following
two licenses. I am wondering what you make of this
[...]
First:
[...]
My own
On Fri, 29 May 2015 14:50:39 +0200 Ole Streicher wrote:
Paul Tagliamonte paul...@debian.org writes:
[...]
Only the copyright holder can change what a *work* is licensed as.
Unless the copyright holder grants the permission to do so, I would
say...
[...]
If the original license allows,
31 matches
Mail list logo
