[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Overview of copyright issues

From: Anthony W. Youngman
Subject: Re: Overview of copyright issues
Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2009 19:45:30 +0100
User-agent: Turnpike/6.07-M (<UlT6TVT4PTS9G3mvKWV+2+aW63>)

In message <address@hidden>, Joseph Wakeling <address@hidden> writes
[1] Where the licensing issue might be important is this: what if
someone forks Lilypond and adds a bunch of their own code with a
different but compatible license statement -- like GPLv2+?  It helps
clarify the situation if each file has a specific license statement
rather than just relying on 'files should be assumed to be under license
X unless otherwise stated'.

I don't know whether it's been done, but what if someone has added code into lilypond itself under a compatible licence such as GPLv2+?

(What do you do if, when asking authors what licence they want you to use, they say "v2+" or "v2/v3", not "v2-only"?)

The other motivation is if there _is_ a desire to alter the license it
might be useful to be able to do this incrementally, e.g. move to (say)
GPL2+ all those files where the authors give permission as soon as that
permission is given.

That's moving forward. The thing that concerns me is that, in my (non-lawyer) opinion, if any non-v2-only code HAS made its way into lilypond, it's a GPL violation to stamp a v2-only licence notice on it.

If you want a simple explanation of that, if A grants v2+ to his code, then B gives the code to C saying it's v2-only, firstly B has no right to do that (the GPL says that C gets their licence from A, not B), and secondly the GPL says you can't take away rights granted by the copyright owner. Changing from v2+ to v2-only is such a forbidden change (taking away the recipient's right to change licence).

Anthony W. Youngman - address@hidden

reply via email to

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