Re: [Denemo-devel] Re: denemo and GPLv3

[Pietro Battiston]

Il giorno gio, 06/05/2010 alle 09.06 +0200, Pietro Battiston ha scritto:
> [...]
> So from my point of view (which as far as I know is the established
> interpretation) the problem is not "are those files GPL 2+?", but "does
> the fact that those files are GPL 2+ allow us to infer that implicitly
> the others are too?". And if the answer is "no", permission of each
> copyright holder will be indeed required.
> 
> Now, what is the answer? I don't know. It is almost sure that all
> contributors just didn't put a header because they implicitly accepted
> Denemo license choice. On the other hand, (very) strict interpretations
> of law even suggest that a file with no license header is simply "All
> rights reserved" (unless a unique file for the project - in _addition_
> to the bare license text - says "all the project, where not otherwise
> stated, is released under license xyz"). So, on this point you may want
> a really expert advice.
> 

Well, maybe not. I incidentally discovered that the GPL states:

"If the Program does not specify a version number of the GNU General
Public License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free
Software Foundation."

(this is taken straight from GPL v3, but v1 and v2 contain perfectly
analogous clauses).

So, to resume:

1) the files with the standard GPL v2 template, i.e. "any later
version", are GPL 2+

2) while there may have been doubts about which GPL version Denemo was
released under (2 or 2+), there never where doubts that it is GPL. So
files constituting it are, where not otherwise specified, GPL. So if
they don't state which version of the GPL they're released under, you
(I, anyone) can freely decide which version to attribute them.

3) Other licenses (SIL Open Fonts license, Creative Commons, Portaudio,
MIT/X11 the BSD style libsmf license and the FSF's "unlimited
permission") can remain exactly as they are (though in principle you
could relicense most of them under GPL, it doesn't make much sense),
except possibly updating headers of LGPLed files to v3+ (but I don't
even think that's strictly required).

So if you want to migrate to GPL v3, there is apparently no obstacle.
Still, in that case you may want to make sure you decide if you migrate
to GPL v3 or v3+ (and add the appropriate header to all files with no
license information).

bye

Pietro