On Thu, Apr 09, 2009 at 11:47:14AM +0200, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote: > Robert Millan wrote: >>> For an example, if a program has three authors, one of whom uses BSD, >>> the second uses "LGPL 2.1 or later" and the third uses "GPL 3" then >>> the Venn Intersect is GPL 3, which is the licence that applies to >>> the work as a whole. However, any recipient is at full liberty to >>> strip out parts of the work, and use whatever licence the author >>> granted. >> >> Yeah, I understand the combined result is GPLv3; the only doubt I have is >> whether it's necessary to explicitly mention each license. > > The combined result is different/new work (with a own license), but > derived from other works. Don't confuse single file with combined results. > > But every file has author(s) and license(s), which are replaceable only > by authors. LGPL allow you to use LGPL as a GPL license, but not > to change it.
Alright. > If you add new function to a LGPL file, and your changes are GPL only, > *practically* the file is only GPL, but the original code is still LGPL, > so better to explicit write also the LGPL. Sounds reasonable. Hubert, can we do that? Let me know if I can help. > (or better: use an other > file for your changes: one license per file) I think splitting the files can be cumbersome. I wouldn't do it unless strictly necessary. -- Robert Millan The DRM opt-in fallacy: "Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all." -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
