GPL and LGPL not acceptable for Fedora!
ssorce at redhat.com
Fri Aug 17 21:28:26 UTC 2007
On Fri, 2007-08-17 at 16:35 -0400, Horst H. von Brand wrote:
> Simo Sorce <ssorce at redhat.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, 2007-08-16 at 09:30 -0400, Jesse Keating wrote:
> > > On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 09:22:30 -0400
> > > Simo Sorce <ssorce at redhat.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > I think this is wrong, I am sorry I didn't catch it before, but if
> > > > COPYING is not just a mere copy of the GPL license as published by the
> > > > FSF, but it is actually an obviously edited file which express the
> > > > intention of the Author, it do matter by all means, and it express the
> > > > license you should use.
> > > > Of course conflicts with the license in single source files have to be
> > > > resolved, but if source files lack any mention of the license version
> > > > they are under, what matter is what's in COPYING. IMO IANAL
> > >
> > > But what if the file isn't modified, and is obviously a verbatim copy
> > > from the webpage?
> > It depends on the case imo.
> > This would me my interpretation:
> It makes not much sense to handle "copied" vs "modified" COPYING here.
> In any case, the COPYING file (GPLv2) does /explicitly/ disallow
> distributing modified copies. Sure, if the COPYING (or README, etc) and
> the source disagree, it would be nice to ask upstream to clarify (AFAIU,
> each single file should explicitly state the license, as otherwise there
> is /no/ permission to copy it!)
Read the archives, I have already explained what I meant.
And don't mistake what is unmodifiable (the license text) from what is:
the file. It is the medium (or meta-medium ? :-) that contains the
license text but that can contain other stuff as well.
> Dr. Horst H. von Brand User #22616 counter.li.org
> Departamento de Informatica Fono: +56 32 2654431
> Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria +56 32 2654239
> Casilla 110-V, Valparaiso, Chile Fax: +56 32 2797513
More information about the fedora-devel-list