Follow-up Comment #21, task #15221 (project administration): > I am not a lawyer, but based on this part of the GPL (under Section 10), "Each time you convey a covered work, the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensors, to run, modify and propagate that work, subject to this License."
When you get a license, you by no means become a copyright holder; you would need a copyright assignment rather than a license. > is it correct for the person modifying the code to replace their name with name of the original author(s)? I think I don't quite understand this. If someone modifies code non-trivially, they (or those who they assigned their copyright to, like in case of gnuastro) becomes an additional copyright holder; check https://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain/html_node/Copyright-Notices.html for more details on what non-trivial changes are and how to write copyright notices for code with multiple copyright holders. (Probably you should re-read whole https://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain/maintain.html#Legal-Matters section.) > This question will also fix the last problem you raised on the two git scripts. In that case, I have modified a previously written code (under MIT license). In fact this case is a little more complicated: as far as I know, unlike the GPL, the MIT license allows usage of any license. So how should I say that the original author distributed it as MIT, but I distribute my modifications to it under GPL? I think you can just put the MIT license with the license notice for the GPL. _______________________________________________________ Reply to this item at: <https://savannah.nongnu.org/task/?15221> _______________________________________________ Message sent via Savannah https://savannah.nongnu.org/
