linuxaudio.org

On Sun, 2012-01-15 at 17:35 +0100, Albert Graef wrote:

quoted text
> On 01/15/2012 12:57 PM, Aurélien Leblond wrote:

> > The GPL is v2 in the code as it's the same one as coming from AMS.

>

> As Ralf rightfully remarked, you have to check the original code for the

> exact wording of the license. If it's GPLv2+ ("GPLv2 or later") you're

> free to choose either GPLv2+ or GPLv3+, as the authors explicitly gave

> you the permission to do that.

>

> Unfortunately, the AMS manpage indeed seems to indicate that it is

> licensed under GPLv2 only as the "or later" clause is missing there, and

> I can't find any other statement in the latest released tarball or on

> the website clarifying the license.

>

> So your code probably needs to be licensed under GPLv2 only. GPLv2 is

> still fine as a license (unless you're bothered by modern absurdities

> like DRM, tivoization and software patents, that is). It poses a problem

> if people want to use your code in their GPLv3+ projects, though -- they

> can't.

>

> So my interpretation is that if you'd like to relicense under GPLv3+

> you'll have to contact Matthias Nagorni and get his explicit written

> permission. According to the AMS manpage he's the only copyright holder

> and I can't find any other copyright notices in the code, even though

> there's no doubt that AMS has had a lot of contributions from Fons and

> other people.

>

> If I'm not mistaken, Matthias has long left for greener pastures,

> though. Matthias, are you still lurking here? Maybe you can clarify the

> license?

>

> > - I'm not even sure of what is the difference between the version 2 and

> > the version 3 of the GPL.

>

> There's plenty of information about that on the web. From the horse's

> mouth: http://gplv3.fsf.org/rms-why.html.

>

> > - The code is ported from AMS. Am I aload to change the license just

> > like that?

>

> The license statement along with the license text tells you exactly what

> you're allowed to do. In this case, as the "or later" clause is missing,

> you're bound by the terms of the GPLv2, as set forth in the accompanying

> COPYING file. Specifically, term 2 of the license tells you that you

> have to relicense your derived work under the terms of the same license.

>

> Disclaimer: IANAL either and this isn't legal advice, so when in doubt

> consult your lawyer. ;-) But this is how I read the license terms of

> AMS, to the best of my knowledge.

>

> HTH,

> Albert

> 

$ cat ~/Desktop/ams-2.0.1/COPYING

[snip]

9. The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new versions

of the General Public License from time to time.  Such new versions will

be similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in detail to

address new problems or concerns.
Each version is given a distinguishing version number.  If the Program

specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and "any

later version", you have the option of following the terms and

conditions either of that version or of any later version published by

the Free Software Foundation.  If the Program does not specify a version

number of this License, you may choose any version ever published by the

Free Software

Foundation.
10. If you wish to incorporate parts of the Program into other free

programs whose distribution conditions are different, write to the

author to ask for permission.  For software which is copyrighted by the

Free Software Foundation, write to the Free Software Foundation; we

sometimes make exceptions for this.  Our decision will be guided by the

two goals of preserving the free status of all derivatives of our free

software and of promoting the sharing and reuse of software generally.

[snip and end]
So "GPLv2" without a "+" or similar indeed seems to stand for "GPLv2

only".
_______________________________________________

Linux-audio-dev mailing list

Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org

http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev