Re: Overview of copyright issues + Debian

[Reinhold Kainhofer]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Am Donnerstag, 10. September 2009 17:12:42 schrieb Anthony W. Youngman:
> In message <address@hidden>, Joseph Wakeling
> <address@hidden> writes
>
> >Now, future policies -- I would suggest new contributions be requested
> >to follow these rules:
> >
> >    -- for code, GPLv2 or later or a more liberal compatible license;
>
> NO NO NO.
>
> Some people are likely to be unhappy with "or later".
>
> The requirement should be "compatible with GPLv2 *AND* GPLv3". 

... So we'll have the same problem again in some years... By then it will be 
even harder tracking down all contributors, who submitted a patch years ago...



> >    -- for docs, GFDLv1.1 or later/GPLv2 or later dual license (or
> >       more liberal compatible license);
>
> GFDL must be "with no invariant sections". While the FSF may want
> invariant sections, it's meant for political diatribes. Do we *really*
> want chunks of documentation that we can't update as lilypond changes?
> There is NO REASON WHATSOEVER for having invariant sections in what is
> real documentation, and every reason for NOT having them.

Huh? nobody ever spoke of adding invariant sections. I though it was clear 
that our docs would not have invariant sections..


> >    -- when altering a file that already exists, use the same license
> >       as for the rest of that file (so if someone contributes a code
> >       file under a BSD/MIT-esque license, anyone who adds to that file
> >       uses the same);
>
> Yup. Use the word "should" rather than "must", however - see below.

See the introduction before the list: ... "be requested to follow these 
rules"...


> >    -- patches that make a significant alteration to a file should add
> >       the author's name to the copyright notice
>
> Along with the author's licence - if the "significant alteration" is
> tantamount to a major rewrite, they might want to change the licence.
> And if the resulting file is mostly their work, then why shouldn't they?

Because they are not allowed by copyright law. They cannot change the license 
if the file is only "mostly" their work. They can only change the license if 
the file is SOLELY their work.

Cheers,
Reinhold
- -- 
- ------------------------------------------------------------------
Reinhold Kainhofer, address@hidden, http://reinhold.kainhofer.com/
 * Financial & Actuarial Math., Vienna Univ. of Technology, Austria
 * http://www.fam.tuwien.ac.at/, DVR: 0005886
 * LilyPond, Music typesetting, http://www.lilypond.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFKqR5QTqjEwhXvPN0RAmB8AJ9xnIdSnF9RXOq9uLUB1lgINNBTAgCgqtjJ
Y4En0Ombch2wVII20T/NCDQ=
=MykT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----