Re: Netpbm

[Ludovic Courtès]

Andreas Enge <address@hidden> skribis:

> Am Sonntag, 20. Januar 2013 schrieb Ludovic Courtès:

[...]

>> It seems to be more complex than this.  Some files in lib/ have this:
>> 
>>   ** Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software and
>> its ** documentation for any purpose and without fee is hereby granted,
>> provided ** that the above copyright notice appear in all copies and
>> that both that ** copyright notice and this permission notice appear in
>> supporting ** documentation.  This software is provided "as is" without
>> express or ** implied warranty.
>> 
>> Others in analyzer/ have GPLv2+, others have this:
>> 
>>   All work has been contributed to the public domain by its authors.
>
> Should it not be possible to relicense all of these under gpl2, so that the 
> license field is still correct? Anyway, we cannot track the licenses of all 
> files with only one field...

Actually, the ‘license’ field should reflect the license of the
“combined work”.  So, since there’s a least one GPLv2+ file, the
combined work may well be under GPLv2+, or perhaps under GPLv2-only if
there’s such a file around.

Ludo’.