Re: [LAD] AMS LV2 plugins: Version 0.0.6

On 01/15/2012 12:57 PM, Aurélien Leblond wrote:
> The GPL is v2 in the code as it's the same one as coming from AMS.

As Ralf rightfully remarked, you have to check the original code for the
exact wording of the license. If it's GPLv2+ ("GPLv2 or later") you're
free to choose either GPLv2+ or GPLv3+, as the authors explicitly gave
you the permission to do that.

Unfortunately, the AMS manpage indeed seems to indicate that it is
licensed under GPLv2 only as the "or later" clause is missing there, and
I can't find any other statement in the latest released tarball or on
the website clarifying the license.

So your code probably needs to be licensed under GPLv2 only. GPLv2 is
still fine as a license (unless you're bothered by modern absurdities
like DRM, tivoization and software patents, that is). It poses a problem
if people want to use your code in their GPLv3+ projects, though -- they
can't.

So my interpretation is that if you'd like to relicense under GPLv3+
you'll have to contact Matthias Nagorni and get his explicit written
permission. According to the AMS manpage he's the only copyright holder
and I can't find any other copyright notices in the code, even though
there's no doubt that AMS has had a lot of contributions from Fons and
other people.

If I'm not mistaken, Matthias has long left for greener pastures,
though. Matthias, are you still lurking here? Maybe you can clarify the
license?

> - I'm not even sure of what is the difference between the version 2 and
> the version 3 of the GPL.

There's plenty of information about that on the web. From the horse's
mouth: http://gplv3.fsf.org/rms-why.html.

> - The code is ported from AMS. Am I aload to change the license just
> like that?

The license statement along with the license text tells you exactly what
you're allowed to do. In this case, as the "or later" clause is missing,
you're bound by the terms of the GPLv2, as set forth in the accompanying
COPYING file. Specifically, term 2 of the license tells you that you
have to relicense your derived work under the terms of the same license.

Disclaimer: IANAL either and this isn't legal advice, so when in doubt
consult your lawyer. ;-) But this is how I read the license terms of
AMS, to the best of my knowledge.

HTH,
Albert

-- 
Dr. Albert Gr"af
Dept. of Music-Informatics, University of Mainz, Germany
Email:  Dr.Graef@email-addr-hidden-online.de, ag@email-addr-hidden-mainz.de
WWW:    http://www.musikinformatik.uni-mainz.de/ag
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@email-addr-hidden
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev