Re: [Gajim-devel] [commit-gajim] r11102 - branches/osx_newbuildsys/src/osx/growl/growl_c
js@gajim.org wrote:
Author: js Date: 2009-02-14 15:51:31 +0100 (Sat, 14 Feb 2009) New Revision: 11102
Modified: branches/osx_newbuildsys/src/osx/growl/growl_c/_growl.c Log: DON'T append the GPL to a BSD licensed file! This is clearly a license violation! Also, don't claim false copyright!
No. If a GPL'ed package incorporates files under GPL-compatible licenses (with or without modifications), it is perfectly OK to prepend the GPL license and copyright notice. What's NOT OK is to remove the original copyright notice, since this usually is a violation of the original non-copyleft license (most of them require the notice to be preserved). No violation here at all.
See http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2007/gpl-non-gpl-collaboration.html.
Yavor Doganov yavor@gnu.org wrote:
No. If a GPL'ed package incorporates files under GPL-compatible licenses (with or without modifications), it is perfectly OK to prepend the GPL license and copyright notice.
Only if the license under which the files are allows relicensing. BSDL does not allow that. You can't just release something under GPL which is not released by the original author under GPL. You violate his copyright then.
Jonathan Schleifer wrote:
Yavor Doganov yavor@gnu.org wrote:
No. If a GPL'ed package incorporates files under GPL-compatible licenses (with or without modifications), it is perfectly OK to prepend the GPL license and copyright notice.
Only if the license under which the files are allows relicensing.
This is not relicensing. This is releasing a version of this code under different terms, which most of the permissive free software licenses explicitly allow. That's the most important thing which distinguishes copyleft and non-copyleft licenses.
You can't just release something under GPL which is not released by the original author under GPL. You violate his copyright then.
I suggest that you read one famous and popular license of that kind:
http://www.xfree86.org/3.3.6/COPYRIGHT2.html#5
Just like Apple is bundling XNU from various pieces released (well, most of them) under free non-copyleft licenses, and releasing it as a whole as proprietary software, you are free to do the reverse as long as you respect the original license. Which is the case here, except for pysyncmenu.c (which has little to do with this discussion and #4200).
-
Jonathan Schleifer -
Yavor Doganov