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
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
