On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 03:09:34PM +0200, Ole Streicher wrote: > Same for me. However: the (L)GPL allows even an unmodified > redistribution under a later license.
This is key -- redistribution. It doesn't change the license. If I get this file after you say it's GPLv3, it's still LGPLv2.1+ to me if I remove it from other works that change the distribution terms (unless it's been modified, in which case the licensing of the work on the whole changes, and yadda yadda yadda) I originally thought there was a different question being asked; sorry about that (the terms used and not looking at the source didn't help :)) > It is up to upstream to decide > whether he chooses the original or a later one. And since I take these > files from upstream, not from the original author, I am bound to his > decision, independently whether the files are modified or not. Unmodified, the license of the works is unchanged, even if we *distribute* under a different one. > Therefore, if he chooses to redistribute the files in src/wcs/ under > GPL-3+, than this is the license for these file, and it should be > documented as such under debian/copyright. And in this case, the > redistribution under a GPL-3+ is clear (by adding the according > statement to the file headers). > > > This doesn't appear to be the case, this looks like LGPLv2.1+ files were > > modified by someone licensing their changes under GPLv3+, which is > > legit. I believe treating this file as GPLv3+ is fine / good enough. > > The reason here is not modification (although it makes this case clear), > but redistribution. Upstream has chosen to redistribute the files under > GPL-3+, and if we want to use these files, we have to respect this. > > Best regards > > Ole -- .''`. 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
