Matthias Andree <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Isaac Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Would it be a good idea for darcs to carry license information, just
>> as it carries the email address of the upstream author, and then
>> prompt the user, during a 'darcs send' as to whether or not the user
>> is licensing their patch under the given terms, and perhaps whether
>> they sign copyright over to the upstream author[1].
>
> The idea of "sign copyright over" is centered on Anglo-American law
> systems doesn't work universally. For instance, the German Urheberrecht
> ("originator's right" and corresponding law) allow transferring the
> right to duplicate and distribute copies, but the authorship cannot be
> transferred (only inherited of the original authorship holder
> dies). IANAL, so take this with a grain of salt.
(snip)
Although AINAL, there seem to be two distinct issues
- transfer of copyright and
- the license terms under which you offer the patch
I'm not sure I really understand your explanation of German law, but
it sounds like you're only talking about one side of the coin, which
is transferring of copyright.
When I'm receiving patches from folks, I would like to make sure they
understand that the patches they're sending me are treated under a
BSD-style license.
>> Occasionally, it might be nice to be able to change the license terms
>> of a piece of software; to upgrade to a new version of the GPL, or to
>> shift to the LGPL when a program becomes useful as a library.
>
> No. The idea of the LGPL is the "lesser GNU public license" for use when
> the GPL is too strong, and the FSF suggests the LGPL for code that isn't
> distinct enough to warrant the GPL.
I do understand that. I was only giving an example of when you might
want to change the license for something, not offering an
interpretation of the LGPL.
peace,
isaac
_______________________________________________
darcs-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.abridgegame.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
