[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Netpbm
From: |
Ludovic Courtès |
Subject: |
Re: Netpbm |
Date: |
Mon, 21 Jan 2013 11:25:58 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.130005 (Ma Gnus v0.5) Emacs/24.2 (gnu/linux) |
Andreas Enge <address@hidden> skribis:
> Am Sonntag, 20. Januar 2013 schrieb Ludovic Courtès:
[...]
>> It seems to be more complex than this. Some files in lib/ have this:
>>
>> ** Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software and
>> its ** documentation for any purpose and without fee is hereby granted,
>> provided ** that the above copyright notice appear in all copies and
>> that both that ** copyright notice and this permission notice appear in
>> supporting ** documentation. This software is provided "as is" without
>> express or ** implied warranty.
>>
>> Others in analyzer/ have GPLv2+, others have this:
>>
>> All work has been contributed to the public domain by its authors.
>
> Should it not be possible to relicense all of these under gpl2, so that the
> license field is still correct? Anyway, we cannot track the licenses of all
> files with only one field...
Actually, the ‘license’ field should reflect the license of the
“combined work”. So, since there’s a least one GPLv2+ file, the
combined work may well be under GPLv2+, or perhaps under GPLv2-only if
there’s such a file around.
Ludo’.
- Re: Netpbm, (continued)
- Re: Netpbm, Ludovic Courtès, 2013/01/19
- Re: Netpbm, Andreas Enge, 2013/01/19
- Re: Netpbm, Ludovic Courtès, 2013/01/20
- Re: Netpbm, Andreas Enge, 2013/01/20
- Re: Netpbm, Ludovic Courtès, 2013/01/20
- Re: Netpbm, Andreas Enge, 2013/01/20
- Re: Netpbm, Andreas Enge, 2013/01/20
- Re: Netpbm, Ludovic Courtès, 2013/01/21
- Re: Netpbm, Andreas Enge, 2013/01/21
- Re: Netpbm, Ludovic Courtès, 2013/01/21
- Re: Netpbm,
Ludovic Courtès <=