On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 11:32:57AM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
I think the problem here is the notion that a file necessarily has
exactly one licence.
Totally agree.
[snip]
So it is true that a downstream redistributor who does not change F
cannot change the licence, because the only
On Sun, 31 May 2015 13:10:14 -0400 Paul Tagliamonte wrote:
[...]
They can do it because the license never changed, it was *just*
distributed under a different set of terms (the GPLv2+ says you can
distribute it as if it were GPLv3+ and everything is tidy -- it does *not*
say you can yell
Paul Tagliamonte writes (Re: GPL + question):
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
On Sat, 30 May 2015 23:24:53 +0200
Ángel González keis...@gmail.com wrote:
On 30/05/15 03:30, Riley Baird wrote:
Only the copyright holder can change what a *work* is licensed as.
Unless the copyright holder grants the permission to do so, I would
say...
Let's say I hold copyright on a
I'm not sure that you can grant the right of enforcing the license to
someone else,
I suspect that for legal litigation you may need to represent the
copyright owner.
That's what I meant; I probably didn't word it clearly, though.
pgp4w78cg1zYD.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On 30/05/15 03:30, Riley Baird wrote:
Only the copyright holder can change what a *work* is licensed as.
Unless the copyright holder grants the permission to do so, I would
say...
Let's say I hold copyright on a work, and I grant someone else
permission to change the license of a work. Who
On 31/05/15 00:10, Riley Baird wrote:
On Sat, 30 May 2015 23:24:53 +0200
Ángel Gonzálezkeis...@gmail.com wrote:
IMHO you would be the one responsible for enforcing the license...
Exactly. So, if a work is originally licensed under GPL-2+ and Person A
makes a copy and gives it to Person B
Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org writes:
If it were me, I would give the benefit of the doubt to the upstream
author of missfits, and trust him that if he added a GPLv3+ header, it
is because he modified the files, as he says in the README.
When I adopted the first package from this author
On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 09:32:12AM +0200, Ole Streicher wrote:
Hi,
I just had a discussion with an ftp-master who rejected one of my
packages. The package in question is missfits. It contains a
directory, src/wcs/ with files that were originally released by Mark
Calabretta under LGPL-2+,
Maximilian maximil...@actoflaw.co.uk writes:
and this seems to imply that the end user can choose which licence
suits them.
Not only the end user -- also (in our case) the upstream author. So, he
can choose to redistribute the files under GPL-3+. Being them modified
or not.
However, if
That's literally what I said.
d/copyright is for source not binary.
On May 29, 2015 8:42 AM, Riley Baird
bm-2cvqnduybau5do2dfjtrn7zbaj246s4...@bitmessage.ch wrote:
I just had a discussion with an ftp-master who rejected one of my
packages. The package in question is missfits. It contains
Paul Tagliamonte paul...@debian.org writes:
On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 09:32:12AM +0200, Ole Streicher wrote:
Hi,
I just had a discussion with an ftp-master who rejected one of my
packages. The package in question is missfits. It contains a
directory, src/wcs/ with files that were originally
I'm probably wrong, but the code that was originally GPLv2+ remains licensed
under the GPLv2 *in addition* to the GPLv3 that the overall package is licensed
under.
The GPLv2 states that:
'if the Program specifies a version number of this License which applies to it
and any later version, you
Paul Tagliamonte paul...@debian.org writes:
On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 10:41:58PM +1000, Riley Baird wrote:
But there are multiple works being combined into the one file. So some
parts of the file are GPLv2+ and other parts of the file are GPLv3. The
file as a whole can only be distributed under
I just had a discussion with an ftp-master who rejected one of my
packages. The package in question is missfits. It contains a
directory, src/wcs/ with files that were originally released by Mark
Calabretta under LGPL-2+, but changed by the upstream author (Emmanuel
Bertin) and released in
I just had a discussion with an ftp-master who rejected one of my
packages. The package in question is missfits. It contains a
directory, src/wcs/ with files that were originally released by Mark
Calabretta under LGPL-2+, but changed by the upstream author (Emmanuel
Bertin) and released
On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 10:41:58PM +1000, Riley Baird wrote:
But there are multiple works being combined into the one file. So some
parts of the file are GPLv2+ and other parts of the file are GPLv3. The
file as a whole can only be distributed under GPLv3.
the terminology being thrown around
If I say a file is GPLv2+, it is forever GPLv2+, even if it's combined
with a GPLv3 work, in that case the *files* are still GPLv2+, that other
file is a GPLv3 work, and the *combined work* is distributed under the
terms of the GPLv3, since it satisfies the license of every file in the
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
Or a CLA. Or breaking copyright law. Or modified the work and distribute
it under a superset of the old terms. Or or or :)
For the record; I don't believe Apple is breaking copyright law, and I
didn't mean to imply that :)
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 04:06:52PM +0200, Ole Streicher wrote:
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 --
Paul Tagliamonte paul...@debian.org writes:
No, you may redistribute it under different terms, *not* relicense. You may
*use* GPLv2+ as GPLv3+, *BUT* the original work is *STILL* GPLv2+, since
you can't relicense works.
Sorry, but I still think release under the terms of the General Public
Miriam Ruiz mir...@debian.org writes:
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
Paul Tagliamonte paul...@debian.org writes:
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.
Apple did, as I have shown. I think they have good lawyers.
Best
Ole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 05:43:21PM +0200, Ole Streicher wrote:
Paul Tagliamonte paul...@debian.org writes:
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.
Apple did, as I have shown. I think they have good
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
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 --
Please end this thread, it's getting nuts. Ask the FSF if you're still unclear.
Thanks,
Paul
On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 11:41 AM, Paul Tagliamonte paul...@debian.org wrote:
On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 05:11:12PM +0200, Ole Streicher wrote:
Again: please provide a reference for this. The copyright
On 29/05/15 16:30, Ole Streicher wrote:
Miriam Ruiz mir...@debian.org writes:
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
Le Fri, May 29, 2015 at 09:32:12AM +0200, Ole Streicher a écrit :
I just had a discussion with an ftp-master who rejected one of my
packages. The package in question is missfits. It contains a
directory, src/wcs/ with files that were originally released by Mark
Calabretta under LGPL-2+, but
Only the copyright holder can change what a *work* is licensed as.
Unless the copyright holder grants the permission to do so, I would
say...
Let's say I hold copyright on a work, and I grant someone else
permission to change the license of a work. Who would enforce the
second license?
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
On Fri, 29 May 2015 14:50:39 +0200 Ole Streicher wrote:
Paul Tagliamonte paul...@debian.org writes:
[...]
Only the copyright holder can change what a *work* is licensed as.
Unless the copyright holder grants the permission to do so, I would
say...
[...]
If the original license allows,
On Friday 11 August 2006 18:10 pm, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
I believe that the totaly interchangable option of specifying
-static or not should not change the free-ness of the source or
resulting binary. So if you link static and you agree that it is a
violation that way then you should not
Samuel Hocevar [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
However, if your printing server component is a library and is GPLed,
then every work linked to it has to be GPLed (or have an even less
restrictive license).
Also, is it relevant that at the moment the whole app. comes on a single CD?
This is
-- Forwarded Message --
Subject: Re: GPL question
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2000 16:13:30 +0100
From: Mike Cunningham [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 05 Sep 2000, you wrote:
snipped my stuff
Um.. debian-legal doesn't engage in handing out legal advice.
We're focussed on whether
On Tue, Sep 05, 2000, Mike Cunningham wrote:
I work for a company which sells a proprietary closed-source call centre
application. We are looking to write a central printing server component which
would [hopefully] make use of Ghostscript. I understand that we would need to
release the
Scripsit Mike Cunningham [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I work for a company which sells a proprietary closed-source call centre
application. We are looking to write a central printing server
component which would [hopefully] make use of Ghostscript. I
understand that we would need to release the
On Thu, 14 Oct 1999, Matthew Simpson wrote:
You are free to use and distribute any command string in the Printer
Technical Reference. I double checked this with my manager. The only
That seems like a pretty straightforward answer to me. What aspect of the
law are you worried about
39 matches
Mail list logo
