Hiof Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License and any later version (dual license).</p>
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
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
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
On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 05:48:25PM +0200, Sebastian Humenda wrote:Text of Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License and any later version (dual license).</p>
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
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.
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 296 |
Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
Uptime: | 62:20:57 |
Calls: | 6,654 |
Files: | 12,200 |
Messages: | 5,331,626 |