Licensing change: Audacious - GPLv3 --> BSD

[Nicolas Mailhot]

> On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 16:52:19 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 05:45:15PM +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
>> > On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 15:57:31 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:

>> > I wrote that in the context of files giving credit to *some* people
>> [*],
>> > which could (!) be an indication that any _unknown_ changes, which
>> other
>> > people may have managed to get included in those files, likely have
>> not
>> > been considered substantial enough to qualify for copyright.
>>
>> Which is a dangerous position to take. Don't say things like that.
>
> I'd love to take advice from you, but with your overly brief comments
> you're unconvincing. I don't think copyright law is as simple as to cover
> it with one-line mails.

Please consider that in the Oracle vs Google case, Oracle ended up with
9-line copying (plus a few test files), and the judge decided that *as*
*a* *matter* *of* *law* copyright infringement had occurred for those 9
lines.

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120510205659643#1119

That's what a very smart judge decided in a huge trial with some of the
countries top lawyers involved.

I don't have any clear idea what is not substantial enough to qualify for
copyright, but this very simple code did
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3940683

-- 
Nicolas Mailhot