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 includes a copyright asignment to an entity. > 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) -- They *can* since the work as modified *can* be distributed under the terms of the GPLv3+, *without* changing the original work's license, but the *file* can be distributed as GPLv3+, since that's the minimum license needed to comply with all parts. > 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. No, it's really not. > Therefore, please show a proof that only the copyright holder can change > the license. Wat? Copyright statute? What jurisdiction? If you want to fight this, I suggest you get a lawyer, 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. The proof is on you -- where does it say you can relicense someone else's copyrighted work / IP? Not *redistribute*, *relicense*. Cheers, Paul -- .''`. Paul Tagliamonte <paul...@debian.org> | Proud Debian Developer : :' : 4096R / 8F04 9AD8 2C92 066C 7352 D28A 7B58 5B30 807C 2A87 `. `'` http://people.debian.org/~paultag `- http://people.debian.org/~paultag/conduct-statement.txt
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
