[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
Tom Potts wrote: > On Thursday 29 November 2007 14:06, Rob Beard wrote: >> Quoting Clare Shepherd <clareeshepherd@xxxxxxx>: > ... >> We all can sleep easy now, I've lost countless hours sleep over this issue. > not quite... > quote from Groklaw: > --------------------------------------- > PJ: Actually, no. My understanding is that they need to get permission from > the authors of the code to be able to redistribute that code again under the > GPLv2. It's not automatic. Perhaps they have done so. If not, they would, I > believe, remain out of compliance. > --------------------------------------- > I'd get up and have a large single malt to calm myself down over that one! > Tom te tom te tom > > Do you have a link? Are Asus trying to get GPLv3 code re-licensed as GPLv2? As far as I understood it, if you made changes to the code you had to release those changes under the same licence (so if it's GPL3 code you can release binaries but have to make the changes available for anyone who requests it), and you can't re-licence some GPL3 code as GPL2 or GPL2 code as GPL3 unless you get permission from everyone who has contributed. I can't understand how they aren't complying with the GPL now, if they've made the source code available for anyone that wants it (unless they've taken a bit of GPL'd code modified it and now want to release it under a different licence?) Rob -- The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG http://mailman.dclug.org.uk/listinfo/list FAQ: http://www.dcglug.org.uk/linux_adm/list-faq.html