[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: New Package: x2x



Sorry if this doesn't thread right, I hit delete in my mailer before
being fully awake.
        
On Sun, 19th of June Per Bjornsson set free these words:
> On Sat, 2005-06-18 at 07:00 -0400, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> > On Fri, 2005-06-17 at 13:09 -0400, Jack Neely wrote:
> > > IANAL.  I'm not sure what to do about the two licenses.  It seems
to me
> > > that by incorperating code that's under the GPL that should make
the
> > > package GPL.  So that's what I did.  Better suggestion?
> > 
> > IANAL as well.  I think there is a conflict in licenses but I don't
> > think we can resolve it.  I think upstream has to change their
license,
> > change their code, or get permission to use the GPL'd code under a
> > license compatible with the BSD license.
>
> No. As long as it's the modern BSD without advertising clause, a
> combined work (containing code of BSD-licensed and GPL-licensed
origin)
> can be licensed under the GPL. So as long as the package is
distributed
> under the GPL there is no problem. As far as I can tell Jack did
exactly
> the right thing.
        
Just want to make sure I'm reading things right -- please correct me if
I'm wrong anywhere:
        
* To be legal the code must be distributed as GPL.
* If the code is under the new-style BSD we can change the license to
  GPL when we distribute it.
* The upstream code is not in compliance with the terms of the GPL and
  upstream authors should be alerted to this issue.
        
Question: Should we add a GPL Copying file to the package documentation?
        
-Toshio

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]