[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- Subject: Re: gpl issue
- From: Rob Kendrick <rjek@...>
- Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2010 17:26:55 +0100
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.