Anders Karlsson wrote:
* Rahul Sundaram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [20080720 19:42]:
Anders Karlsson wrote:
And any license that does not permit itself to be replaced or
over-ruled by the GPL - is hence incompatible - even if it explicitly
permits combination with the GPL for any derived work or combination
work.
Am I understanding this right?
This part is incorrect. If has additional requirements but explicitly
states that the combination is compatible with GPL, then it is. Affero
GPL (AGPL) is a example of this.
http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/agpl-3.0.html
Thanks Rahul for taking the time to be plesant and provide useful
answers to a genuine question. You are a credit to your employer and
to the organisation you represent.
"Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, you have
permission to link or combine any covered work with a work licensed
under version 3 of the GNU General Public License into a single combined
work, and to convey the resulting work. The terms of this License will
continue to apply to the part which is the covered work, but the work
with which it is combined will remain governed by version 3 of the GNU
General Public License."
So the part of the work that is non-GPL licensed, can stay non-GPL
licensed in the combined works and derivatives?
Note that he is describing GPL v3. Under V2 (which applies to the
majority of works), nothing can be in a 'work as a whole' unless the
exact terms of GPLv2 apply to all parts. Of course in the case of
pre-existing code already under a less restrictive license, the original
terms remain on the original package.
--
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
