Gordon Messmer wrote:
Les Mikesell wrote:
Which was and is exactly my point. The GPL must cover the work as a
whole and thus is only compatible with licenses that permit their own
terms to be replaced with those of the GPL.
You're confusing the terms of the license. When you distribute a new
work derived from a GPL licensed work, the derived version must meet the
requirements of the GPL. You must provide the complete source code and
allow redistribution, and meet all of the other terms.
Yes, that is the only context where being compatible with the GPL
matters. And in that context the GPL terms must apply to it all.
HOWEVER: The terms of the code that you've contributed under a
compatible license are not replaced.
No one ever claimed that components cannot retain their own license in
the copies that have not been combined with a GPL line of code. That's
obvious, but irrelevant to the question of what happens when they are
combined.
Nothing can be taken in isolation when it is part of work containing
any GPL-covered content because of that work-as-a-whole restriction.
Sure it can. Any function that you've contributed may be re-used by
another developer under your terms to implement the same function in a
work of theirs, which may or may not be licensed under the GPL.
I don't think that's technically true, although probably no one would
bother to prove the lineage knowing that an identical non-GPL'd copy
existed. I believe that if you receive a work under the GPL, you are
obligated to observe the GPL requirements on all copies of any part of it.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx
--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
