Les Mikesell wrote:
The statement is not wrong - the reason a few that are listed as
compatible is that the permit themselves to be replaced by the GPL.
You can not legally replace the copyright on a work that was created by
someone else, unless the license of that work specifically allows you to
do so. I believe that there is at least one such license listed, but in
general, you are incorrect.
This was at the heart of a problem in the Linux kernel, where a driver
taken from OpenBSD had its copyright notice mistakenly removed:
The entire conversation may prove educational. I think that someone
from the FSF wrote an article about mixing licensed works after the
atheros driver mistake to clarify the legalities for non-lawyers.
combined in a work with GPL components any other attributes of the
original licenses no longer apply.
As above, incorrect.
fedora-list mailing list
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list