2015-05-29 16:06 GMT+02:00 Ole Streicher <oleb...@debian.org>: > Paul Tagliamonte <paul...@debian.org> writes: >> 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. > > It does. Just look into the license (resp. the header, for simplicity): > > | you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU > | General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; > | either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. > > So, redistribution may change the license.
It is indeed quite a grey area, and quite confusing, in my opinion. According with the (simple but enough for my purposes) definition in Wikipedia ("Copyright is a form of intellectual property, applicable to any expressed representation of a creative work. It is often shared among multiple authors, each of whom holds a set of rights to use or license the work, and who are commonly referred to as rightsholders. These rights frequently include reproduction, control over derivative works, distribution, public performance, and "moral rights" such as attribution.") [1], it is the author[s] the one[s] who has the rights to license the work. GPL2 [2] says: "This License applies to any program or other work which contains a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed under the terms of this General Public License. The "Program", below, refers to any such program or work, and a "work based on the Program" means either the Program or any derivative work under copyright law: that is to say, a work containing the Program or a portion of it, either verbatim or with modifications and/or translated into another language.", so the unmodified program is explicitly defined by the license as a "work based on the Program". It also says that "Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope", so the license does explicitly not apply to relicensing. You can't relicense other person's work released under GPL2. What the license says is that "You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License". It is also said that "If the Program specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and "any later version", you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that version or of any later version published by the Free Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number of this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation." So in my opinion, if you modify a code which was released under GPL2+ and you license your modifications as GPL3+, the resulting work has to also be GPL, and the terms or conditions that apply are those of the version 3 of the lincense, or later, but you're not effectively relicensing the code that is not yours, so that part would be still licensed as GPL2+ by the author and copyright holder. So if you later removed the part of code that was covered by a different license, the resulting code would be still under the original license, because you were never the copyright holder, and you never had permission to relicense it. I seriously doubt that any judge would rule otherwise. That's just my two cents. Greetings, Miry [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright [2] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.html -- 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/CAFotxVMyvYNxbg+asOJHDNNMopMVfLVeEeKW4=cazhoedvr...@mail.gmail.com