1. Forum
  2. Usenet
  3. LINUX.DEBIAN.LEGAL

  • Adding licencing terms to GPL-2

    From Sebastian Humenda@21:1/5 to All on Tue Sep 24 17:50:02 2019
    Hi

    I would like to request your help on a licencing issue that we are having in FreeDict. Since I am the maintainer of the freedict dictionaries in Debian, this
    would affect Debian in the longer term too, hence I thought you might be willing
    to help.

    A contributor changed the licencing terms of a dictionary like this:

    - <p>Available under the terms of the <ref target="https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.html">GNU General Public License ver. 3.0 and any later version</ref>.</p>
    + <p>Available under the terms of the <ref target="https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.html">GNU General Public License ver. 3.0 and any later version</ref> and all changes after version 0.3 (0.3 included) is also released under Text
    of Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License and any later version (dual license).</p>

    According to him, the dual-licencing is fine because the mentioned licence is compatible with the GPL. Changes to a file must obey the licencing terms and GPL does AFAIK not allow relicencing. The only acception would be if all authors
    agree so that the work can indeed be relicenced.

    What do you think is the correct way to move forward?

    Thanks
    Sebastian

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

    iQIzBAABCgAdFiEEDdK8MMbHMms/+s0k2/EkeQsw7KUFAl2KOsYACgkQ2/EkeQsw 7KUgkA//RkqCFbrbdVs0fUSlk0MgAF1g4JUCdwubV/e+90jIabX5xsk9U8238892 gCfeKDaxS8snOIiQL684vqugW/NZnvGdi0MnyyqvJ9CrLdHJzy0jHPL+3UfZhB07 gdxDeuYQaiiPGyJcHPLWyHTBKqSY1yTa2coAkKkCtzxdigshPa6wDtXdvcEg1Ies dBurrKBHnpYckGYu8U67eOsXvp4mtGLKRuyp0y9T1eBcjjsMRdiHEIok2w4ikRU8 WqRsX7pPX9l5zfQXihfhsfb4TZpauVHCWPjsQW9MMo7f+nleP5oWOYmmjhS4IMnC kkoark8Noaq7WkcwC/mkQWIkC6PFPM+yEfamfbkWVxgWX1BnYmbHOLvWmLTrq5GH jBd9h6SSv8C/t/LAmBYDvf6Iof5E/LhIPUCCRu6vNqpw6FoLGlYvb8YUcrkZsWHz QWosdtAb0gF5WoA6ejRmf4KTFdKgpcdY3yE7PvsThtfLFupGAD8DkByQXBePit+e U6Godjvm2Th/yTH12DS9G/e2uRMxJL6ElZaDikZbepsSIjQS/XEa8bh7tmVEKiKB oFieDViSpIXMutV1xc+ly90c3QsuyxmNmUUiluB/ZGPQ7BWlZWyukoU/cY/CkIQt H6xkK3UWagxjcwLNBbdGsD4Zh3QsL09Kz/elN8lR18HtGpOA15M=
    =jlIA
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From [email protected]@21:1/5 to Sebastian Humenda on Tue Sep 24 19:20:02 2019
    On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 05:48:25PM +0200, Sebastian Humenda wrote:
    Hi

    I would like to request your help on a licencing issue that we are having in FreeDict. Since I am the maintainer of the freedict dictionaries in Debian, this
    would affect Debian in the longer term too, hence I thought you might be willing
    to help.

    A contributor changed the licencing terms of a dictionary like this:

    - <p>Available under the terms of the <ref target="https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.html">GNU General Public License ver. 3.0 and any later version</ref>.</p>
    + <p>Available under the terms of the <ref target="https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.html">GNU General Public License ver. 3.0 and any later version</ref> and all changes after version 0.3 (0.3 included) is also released under Text
    of Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License and any later version (dual license).</p>

    According to him, the dual-licencing is fine because the mentioned licence is compatible with the GPL. Changes to a file must obey the licencing terms and

    IANAL, TINLA.

    It's one-way compatible, meaning the opposite (dual-licensing a work
    under CC-BY-SA 4.0) would be fine. Maybe you could send this link and
    try to clarify things with the contributor? In any case, Debian could
    still distribute it under GPLv3.0 only.

    https://creativecommons.org/2015/10/08/cc-by-sa-4-0-now-one-way-compatible-with-gplv3/

    GPL does AFAIK not allow relicencing. The only acception would be if all authors
    agree so that the work can indeed be relicenced.

    What do you think is the correct way to move forward?

    Thanks
    Sebastian



    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

    iQIzBAABCgAdFiEE34E7Im3TmixTD299CrplA3L9lXEFAl2KTJcACgkQCrplA3L9 lXEbWQ/9Fvd8l01HBvUUmSuMr0s2f3MpeCYxGaeAgIReozhqL2yKiXxIRNcOPgnY ay78V5SSayVWM5/KvzfUIQmLedI5t0rAqjYO3/6RqG6W6hns0DqZZPkYZuXl3R14 lbjxIlLws2WPW5xzkUyLtzvRdSaxqIuAR1EogOFgw/wCpdSRlH+UAf3j4CHw8QmU GC5aLxfVhZDwVDwZYkx/h35wsjcXUG7Ns/MRiYcwjnKU26DYjiYmk8D9mIGwscrt 7uIsCE1C4S+wS+Q+Uaj0rfudg70ENgNXKa8sspmPXgnJBL43TphnI2Q//K2WlCOd c1U3ztqP26QnbmeqUq3rKb7x+gqkGnBvljyK/sAq9lidFLVHdMH+KAdVURnpBUuG 0hSjQCThUhKGH8kxnoZukdi8VdczWqXsPqNirgBtg9+NXxoZE4qEyuL6hw+Vcs7U zAJLkFB7fJp3swVur5HJrC2Yci7C0byLrBJWAak4WwpJjItqWqtT0SP35e02LMsc Grh4cHgO+rCRLbNAr1m1azi9OqajaBCxMusYVOOqo0wuQHS+X/5cFdf02qhqltam exCtdbmlTjOiTiYniYZxnPZ7dMW8UjVNNBF/BqcRvKD2p5JX1+5mi2NzkHH6w3DM ghkVx0uDYVxb68yKyhro5Is4YR3AMR19ZDLvGA1V43T3zXeK2Bs=
    =zBIG
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Sebastian Humenda@21:1/5 to [email protected] on Sat Oct 5 12:10:01 2019
    Hi

    Sorry for the long delay.

    [email protected] schrieb am 24.09.2019, 14:04 -0300:
    On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 05:48:25PM +0200, Sebastian Humenda wrote:
    I would like to request your help on a licencing issue that we are having in >> FreeDict. Since I am the maintainer of the freedict dictionaries in Debian, this
    would affect Debian in the longer term too, hence I thought you might be willing
    to help.

    A contributor changed the licencing terms of a dictionary like this:

    - <p>Available under the terms of the <ref target="https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.html">GNU General Public License ver. 3.0 and any later version</ref>.</p>
    + <p>Available under the terms of the <ref target="https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.html">GNU General Public License ver. 3.0 and any later version</ref> and all changes after version 0.3 (0.3 included) is also released under
    Text of Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License and any later version (dual license).</p>

    According to him, the dual-licencing is fine because the mentioned licence is
    compatible with the GPL. Changes to a file must obey the licencing terms and

    IANAL, TINLA.

    It's one-way compatible, meaning the opposite (dual-licensing a work
    under CC-BY-SA 4.0) would be fine.

    Sorry, but I am not sure what you mean: licencing it CC-BY-SA 4.0 and relicencing it GPL later on is fine? So for my concrete issue, the change needs to be reverted?

    Thanks
    Sebastian

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

    iQIzBAABCgAdFiEEDdK8MMbHMms/+s0k2/EkeQsw7KUFAl2YangACgkQ2/EkeQsw 7KWrKQ/+LK3aC4vYGoOCnypS/Q2855QK7Gl8tJqlBZW/2nYQlVdQi4GgzE0RuMLu SQlAKO2b6hh5fn8LBPO9o3B4hYqLwfVksHZ/NyeWdFISF22BAfo/ZuTXe1HjwkDm 4xUTbyJd4gXN/Na0QHy7Kzw7jamA+5u7VONHdtAlMhOzh08u3sya7XH2tyDz/hXf Pcl2H6nSEof9c7Qj4qRHfgE693fggxsSSt1NMCS5kEGEocIKACslumxRIbkAx6+4 LxpkarhNUQFwuIkLi0RmnnHF3h82sYAvSIsaWFMECdjdd/ay8UVMTJ0rTboTMsEa +H+E4QicFjAxn3BTRBNNfLmDO5yUCOaWP+guvTOyVIJ5ggu1tUFmRaP0QUrnausr fb7+tC1DVHz9AoFkyYIHYMi5RfWFuUJXl3Ms8AvwhLFsa+uObLlz6fqM2WspRxJx 4Uu20LUGmq8BDziBIB7bo9zaxcFzuvscX5L8sTW8BstQiAaq2qNTN/ql1EnTkGid dcUNwuUKZpQ13exWRxJSmSf2MFYjBoLL/NuNwKwiAZhT6z50HaJpOWbSb3rcEmZQ VXM/VfxUytZyDumo6EuRUv+tUPgfgeQu6whxywJmm2jTtAKqNt56N0MypGeHA4Dw rmwz7L41PUqqojMFTIyJT6+g3Uyr+i40spwBbiMmDK06e1ZFZ9M=
    =ATrE
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)