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 License v3+" means that the file has the license GPLv3+. > To relicense implies you hold copyright, since only the copyright > holder can license their works, even copylefted works. 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. It is also wrong for the "changed" case that we have: If only the copyright holder (Mark Calabretta) had the right to change the license, then the files in question could not have been modified and distributed under the GPL-3+ license by the upstream author (Emmanuel Bertin) -- since even the modified files are still copyrighted by Mark, so the Emmanuel alone could not change their license. This is, however, against the idea of the "+" in the GPL versions. Therefore, please show a proof that only the copyright holder can change the license. Best regards Ole -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/87twuve7vz....@debian.org
