On Sat, 30 May 2015 10:46:04 +0900
Charles Plessy wrote:
> Le Sat, May 30, 2015 at 11:26:59AM +1000, Riley Baird a écrit :
> > > > - 3. You may not have any income from distributing this source
> > > > -(or altered version of it) to other developers. When You
> > > > -use this product in a
Le Sat, May 30, 2015 at 11:26:59AM +1000, Riley Baird a écrit :
> > > - 3. You may not have any income from distributing this source
> > > -(or altered version of it) to other developers. When You
> > > -use this product in a comercial package, the source may
> > > -not be charged seper
> > > 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
> > - 3. You may not have any income from distributing this source
> > -(or altered version of it) to other developers. When You
> > -use this product in a comercial package, the source may
> > -not be charged seperatly.
>
> This clause is really annoying, but it seems to allow the fil
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+
On Fri, 29 May 2015 14:50:39 +0200 Ole Streicher wrote:
> Paul Tagliamonte 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, then anyone can r
On Fri, 29 May 2015 14:12:51 +0200 Paul Gevers wrote:
> Hi Debian legal,
Hello Paul,
thanks for taking these freeness issues seriously.
>
> I am investigating two files in the Lazarus source with the following
> two licenses. I am wondering what you make of this
[...]
> First:
[...]
My own per
On 29/05/15 16:30, Ole Streicher wrote:
> Miriam Ruiz 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 t
> 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
wi
On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 05:43:21PM +0200, Ole Streicher wrote:
> Paul Tagliamonte 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.
Or a C
Paul Tagliamonte 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 debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
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 wrote:
> On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 05:11:12PM +0200, Ole Streicher wrote:
>> Again: please provide a reference for this. The copyright holder has
>> sur
Miriam Ruiz 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 you're not effectiv
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 in
Paul Tagliamonte 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
License v3+" means
2015-05-29 16:06 GMT+02:00 Ole Streicher :
> Paul Tagliamonte 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 l
On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 04:06:52PM +0200, Ole Streicher wrote:
> Paul Tagliamonte 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.
Paul Tagliamonte 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 (res
Maximilian 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 Emmanuel Bertin's code is spe
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
Paul Tagliamonte 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 GPLv3.
>
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 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 release
> > > 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
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". I
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
> > 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) an
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
> 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
Hi Debian legal,
I am investigating two files in the Lazarus source with the following
two licenses. I am wondering what you make of this (mostly wondering
about clause 3 of the first license and clause 1 of the second). My
interpretation of this is that they are non-DFSG, but I am also aware
that
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+, but changed by the upstream author (Emmanuel
Bertin) and released in t
31 matches
Mail list logo
