[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Overview of copyright issues

From: Hans Aberg
Subject: Re: Overview of copyright issues
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 10:08:30 +0200

On 10 Sep 2009, at 09:42, Reinhold Kainhofer wrote:

Am Donnerstag, 10. September 2009 09:30:57 schrieb Hans Aberg:
I'm not a lawyer, but if I came across "v2 or latest" wording, my
advice would be to treat it as "v2 only" because to do anything else
IS TOO DANGEROUS. So your wording is self-defeating because no sane
distributor would dare take advantage of the "or latest" clause.

That seems to be the case: at least for new restrictions, "or later"
essentially useless.

No, it's rather essential. Imagine someone wants to create a fork of LilyPond, where he directly links to gs instead of calling the binary. He'll be out of luck, because gs is GPL v3(+?), while LilyPond is GPL v2only. The "or later"
allows to link GPL v3 libraries...

He link as he wish, as long as the distribution does not violate any individual terms.

So it is probably simplest to just update the license when you have
time. All these GPLs are probably reasonable for LilyPond

You can't simply go around and change licenses, unless you are the copyright

But you are the copyright owner of the LilyPond code.

That's the paperwork that is needed: Every contributor, who has until
now contributes as GPL v2only, needs to agree to change his/her contributions to GPL v2+. Unless you track down every substantial contributor (git helps in
that regard), LilyPond can't switch to GPL v2+.

Why? Is there a GNU requirement? - My cursory reading of v3 did not find anything like that. Where does this idea come from?


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]