How to (radically) fork an LGPL project?
Kenny Tilton
large wadges of the original. I understand a couple of things:
1. my version is a derived work still bound by the LGPL. No problemo.
2. I must make clear that I have made (extensive) modifications so no
one blames any one but me for any problems with the modified lib.
My question is a simple one: how do I do this? It seems strange leaving
the poor originator's name in the copyright notice at the top of my
nonsense. So I am inclined to do something like (in brief):
"Copyright (c) 2004 by Kenny
"A work derived from XYZ, Copyright (c) 2003 by Joe. All blame goes to
kenny, all credit goes to Joe."
otoh, it seems strange claiming copyright when 50% of the code is
largely untouched. (40% of the original is replaced with my original
code, 10% is Joe's code somewhat modified.)
A metaquestion is where else I could go for answers to this question. I
seem to recall someplace specific, but quite a bit of googling this am
produced nothing.
kenny
--
Home? http://tilton-technology.com
Cells? http://www.common-lisp.net/project/cells/
Cello? http://www.common-lisp.net/project/cello/
Why Lisp? http://alu.cliki.net/RtL%20Highlight%20Film
Your Project Here! http://alu.cliki.net/Industry%20Application
Barry Margolin
Kenny Tilton <kti...@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
> I have taken an LGPL project and made radical changes incompatible with
> large wadges of the original. I understand a couple of things:
>
> 1. my version is a derived work still bound by the LGPL. No problemo.
>
> 2. I must make clear that I have made (extensive) modifications so no
> one blames any one but me for any problems with the modified lib.
>
> My question is a simple one: how do I do this? It seems strange leaving
> the poor originator's name in the copyright notice at the top of my
> nonsense. So I am inclined to do something like (in brief):
>
> "Copyright (c) 2004 by Kenny
>
> "A work derived from XYZ, Copyright (c) 2003 by Joe. All blame goes to
> kenny, all credit goes to Joe."
>
> otoh, it seems strange claiming copyright when 50% of the code is
> largely untouched. (40% of the original is replaced with my original
> code, 10% is Joe's code somewhat modified.)
>
> A metaquestion is where else I could go for answers to this question. I
> seem to recall someplace specific, but quite a bit of googling this am
> produced nothing.
IANAL, but I suggest a combined copyright:
Copyright (c) 2004 by Kenny, Joe
--
Barry Margolin, bar...@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***
Martin Dickopp
> In article <5TYzc.188756$WA4....@twister.nyc.rr.com>,
> Kenny Tilton <kti...@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> I have taken an LGPL project and made radical changes incompatible with
>> large wadges of the original. I understand a couple of things:
>>
>> 1. my version is a derived work still bound by the LGPL. No problemo.
>>
>> 2. I must make clear that I have made (extensive) modifications so no
>> one blames any one but me for any problems with the modified lib.
>>
>> My question is a simple one: how do I do this? It seems strange leaving
>> the poor originator's name in the copyright notice at the top of my
>> nonsense. So I am inclined to do something like (in brief):
>>
>> "Copyright (c) 2004 by Kenny
>>
>> "A work derived from XYZ, Copyright (c) 2003 by Joe. All blame goes to
>> kenny, all credit goes to Joe."
A statement to the effect of "all blame goes to me, all credit goes to
him" is not required by the LGPL, but if you want to include such a line
as a courtesy to the original author, you can of course do so.
>> otoh, it seems strange claiming copyright when 50% of the code is
>> largely untouched. (40% of the original is replaced with my original
>> code, 10% is Joe's code somewhat modified.)
It is not a question of "claiming" copyright. As soon as you make any
non-trivial changes, you hold the copyright to the code written by you.
If it is 90%, 50%, or 1% doesn't matter.
> IANAL, but I suggest a combined copyright:
>
> Copyright (c) 2004 by Kenny, Joe
IANAL either, but it is my understanding that the years matter.
Therefore, I suggest two copyright statements:
Copyright (C) 2004 Kenny
Copyright (C) 2003 Joe
Martin
Brian Gough
> A metaquestion is where else I could go for answers to this question. I
> seem to recall someplace specific, but quite a bit of googling this am
> produced nothing.
For personal projects,
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html
For commercial projects,
FSF License Consulting Service -- http://patron.fsf.org/benefits.html
--
Brian Gough
Network Theory Ltd,
Publishing Free Software Manuals --- http://www.network-theory.co.uk/