Licensing change: Audacious - GPLv3 --> BSD

[Nicolas Mailhot]

> On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 21:33:26 +0200, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
>
>> 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
>
> Do you think a few more verdicts like that will influence small FLOSS
> projects? In that they will not apply proposed fixes "faster, faster,
> faster",

You complained no one here was a lawyer and any residual changes would be
deemed not qualifying under copyright law. I posted a reference to a very
recent judgement where a very good lawyer tried to argue the same for nine
very simple code lines over a code corpus that dwarfs audacious (not
qualifying seems to be written de minimis in american lawyer speek) and a
very good judge refused the argument.

If that's not good enough for you as authoritative reference I don't know
what could be.

-- 
Nicolas Mailhot