John Levon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Wed, Feb 23, 2005 at 01:01:24PM +0100, Lars Gullik Bj?nnes wrote:
>
>> We cannot have parts of code with GPL and others with artistic-license
>> in the _same_ file.
>
| Sure we can. Why not? We merely need to note that certain portions are
| licensed under the artistic license as well as the GPL.
This is not aceptable to me.
No. It is not up to us to dual license. That is up to the author. If
John, or anyone else, has a patch that _do not_ derive from LyX code.
(And how to you make that patch, hmm?) Then he would be free to dual
license it... but we are free to pick the correct license for our
usage: GPL.
| Note that by
| contributing, he was bound by the GPL+xforms license we had, and the
| xforms exception doesn't appear to be relevant to what he contributed
| to.
Right.
| Therefore, his contributions are ALREADY probably under the GPL. Anyway,
| it's inconvenient, and utterly silly, but there is no disputing that
| he's the copyright holder on his contributions.
Yes, they are. He is copyright holder, but if his contributions are to
be i the LyX sources they have to be GPL.
--
Lgb
