On 01/03/15 00:05, Riley Baird wrote:
Or they could keep the files from Nokia under LGPL2.1, and use
GPL3+openssl exception for the rest of the files. Given that they have
proper headers, I don't see a problem with that, although I would
mention that in the readme.
But what license would the work as a whole be distributed as, then?
I see your problem now. Silly conflicts between opensource licenses.
Maybe LGPL2.1 can be "upgraded" to GPL3+openssl exception?
It fits the spirit of those licenses, but I don't know if that'd
actually be
possible from a legal POV.
A LGPL2.1 library can be used in a binary under GPL3+openssl exception
since section 6 states:
«you may also combine or link a "work that uses the Library" with the
Library to produce a work containing portions of the Library, and
distribute that work under terms of your choice, provided that the terms
permit modification of the work for the customer's own use and reverse
engineering for debugging such modifications» but I don't think you can
apply GPL + openssl exception terms to a LGPL work since IMHO that would
no longer be the " ordinary GNU General Public License".
Another option would be to relicense the program adding a LGPL linking
exception, too.
If upstream doesn't mind relicensing under LGPL (per #25), I would
recommend doing so, as that will be much clearer.
About Lenin photograph:
Don't concern about imaginary countries. Copyright is sufficiently
complex with the existing ones :)
It's over 50 years pma which seems to be the copyright duration in
Russia. And for US, which is not following
the shorter term rule of the Berne Convention, it's also PD for being
published before 1923. I don't think it would be a problem, but IAANAL.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
