Paul Tagliamonte <[email protected]> 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 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.
Same for me. However: the (L)GPL allows even an unmodified redistribution under a later license. It is up to upstream to decide whether he chooses the original or a later one. And since I take these files from upstream, not from the original author, I am bound to his decision, independently whether the files are modified or not. Therefore, if he chooses to redistribute the files in src/wcs/ under GPL-3+, than this is the license for these file, and it should be documented as such under debian/copyright. And in this case, the redistribution under a GPL-3+ is clear (by adding the according statement to the file headers). > 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. The reason here is not modification (although it makes this case clear), but redistribution. Upstream has chosen to redistribute the files under GPL-3+, and if we want to use these files, we have to respect this. Best regards Ole -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: https://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
