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 was so confusing I had to look at the
source to see what was actually going on here :)
There was *one* work, which *was* LGPL. By an author. They published
it on their own.
This work will forver be LGPL.
The author of this package took that source, and *modified* it
(modified, *not* combined). This modified work is distributed as
GPLv3.
I don't see the point in adding LGPL, *IFF* the works *ARE* modified
and derived works. Not just straight copy-paste. I'd be interested
in what changes took place, I don't see any marking of it.
Defer to the ftp-master who processed it. Ask them for clarification
(feel free to point to this mail)
In the case where two works are combined into one file - this is
functionally compilation (at least not the preferred form of
modification, which means it's *not* source)
This doesn't appear to be the case, this looks like LGPLv2.1+ files were
modified by someone licensing their changes under GPLv3+, which is
legit. I believe treating this file as GPLv3+ is fine / good enough.
Cheers,
Paul
--
.''`. Paul Tagliamonte <[email protected]> | Proud Debian Developer
: :' : 4096R / 8F04 9AD8 2C92 066C 7352 D28A 7B58 5B30 807C 2A87
`. `'` http://people.debian.org/~paultag
`- http://people.debian.org/~paultag/conduct-statement.txt
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
