Quoting Javier Serrano Polo (2016-05-06 01:15:11) > According to > https://github.com/LMMS/lmms/issues/2752#issuecomment-217043740 , it > looks like the license should be GPL-2+ despite what individual files > say.
I am not a lawyer. That conversation lack any proof of copyright and/or licensing having changed from what is explicitly stated in headers of sourcecode. Only the copyright holder can relicense beyond the scope of a previous license, so stating that the project as a whole is licensed GPL-3+ when some parts of the project is GPL-2 is not possible without the consent of copyright holders. I have posted a comment to the referenced upstream bugreport, to try steer the discussion away from "Debian view on things" an instead look at actual statements in code. - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
signature.asc
Description: signature
