On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 06:14:43PM +0200, Christophe Lohr wrote: > Carsten Hey a écrit : > > I did just open popcon-retirement.sh and noticed that you did change the > > license to GPL. > Sorry, I'm not very comfortable with licensing issues.
Such things are not that complicated: You are allowed to add additional restrictions/extensions (like "you are not allowed to use this code when you wear a blue t-shirt") to any code you redistribute, unless the original license requires that forks must allow redistribution unter the same license, which does the GPL in any version. Adding exceptions like the famous OpenSSL exception, which allows GPLed code to be linked against OpenSSL, although the GPL actually forbids this, is only permitted when you are the only copyright holder of the code or all copyright holders agree, the same applies for adding additional licenses, as you did with adding GPL1. Additionally you must preserve all Copyright statements and the license notice itself, unless you are allowed to remove one license, for example when the code is dual licensed, like orphaner (in that case you must preserve at least one license notice) or when the license explicitly permits this (see WTFPL). "GPL" is, though unclear, mostly interpreted as GPL version 1, and GPL 1 says you are allowed to redistribute it under any version of the GPL, "GPL" without mentioning the version should be avoided. Since different GPL version are incompatible to each other, which means that you are not allowed to use software published under this licenses in one work, using the phrase "or, at your option any later version" is preferable if you are in the position to choose a license and you want a copyleft license. Examples are "GPL 2 or any later version" or, if you want to use the additional restrictions regarding patenting "GPL 3 or any later version". Well known alternatives to copyleft licenses are the BSD like licenses, for example the 2-clause BSD license, these licenses provide more freedom to your users but don't ensure that forks of the software you wrote remain free, so anybody can create commercial software based on BSD licensed code without the need to publish the source code. If you understand what I wrote you know more than most people, even in the free software world, about licenses and copyright :) > So, here is "v0.2" The license and the copyright are ok now, thanks. If somebody in the future will ask why you don't support whiptail (people do this from time to time) please point them to https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/deborphan/+bug/347913/+index As already said, I will take a closer look at your software, but it might take a few days before I actually start doing so. Regards Carsten -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
