Re: gpl issue

[Rob Kendrick <rjek@...>]

On Wed, Sep 08, 2010 at 08:21:41PM +0400, Bulat Ziganshin wrote:
> Hello Rob,
> 
> Wednesday, September 8, 2010, 8:16:41 PM, you wrote:
> 
> >> sorry but you are wrong. changing license of modified sources to more
> >> prohibitive one is very common operation. lgpl explicitly says that
> >> this code is allowed to be relicensed under gpl
> 
> > Doesn't the LGPL say you are allowed to use the product under either the
> > LGPL or GPL?  I don't believe it says you can "relicence" it, just that
> > you have the choice.
> 
> all these licenses (mit, lgpl,gpl) are about source code license, not the
> program usage. you can sell it or make money on monthly subscription - it's
> completely different topic

You seem to be misunderstanding what "relicence" means.  It means to
issue a new licence.  If an existing licence says you can additionally use
somethinng under the terms of another licence (as with LGPL -> GPL, or
GPLv2 -> GPLv3) then this is not relicencing.  No change in the licence
text has occured.

> >> mit/bsd explicitly allows to do *everything* with the code, including
> >> redistributing it with any license
> 
> > No, it does not.  It allows sublicencing.
> 
> "to deal in the Software without restriction, including... sublicense"

Precisely.  Sublicencing is not relicencing, and relicencing is not
sublicencing.  This is why we have different words for them :)
Additionally, dealing means to deal and distribute, not to change what
conditions you were supplied it with in the first place, otherwise there
would be no need to have a licence text at all.

B.