compatible with GPL ?

[MatMaul]

hello,

anyone with some law (or license) skills can said to me if this license is compatible with GPL :
// Author: Donald Kackman
// Email: don@itsEngineering.com
// Copyright 2002, Donald Kackman
//
// You may freely use or modify this code provided this
// Copyright is included in all derived versions.
//
///////////////////////////////////////////////////

if yes what do I need to do to use it ? remove this header and put a GPL header with the same copyright or just don't change the header ?

thanks in advance

[Doom9]

The main tenet of the GPL is that if you re-use, you have to offer the source code - clearly this isn't the case with the above header. It rather sounds like some BSD style license where you can re-use code for a proprietary software.

[MatMaul]

weird, the only obligation of this "license" is to include the copyright.
I have some problems to understand some parts of the GPL, it is said to be a copyleft license but we can see a copyright statement in almost all the under-GPL files...
does the GPL enforces to copy those copyrights if you copy some code ?

[Dark Shikari]

weird, the only obligation of this "license" is to include the copyright.
I have some problems to understand some parts of the GPL, it is said to be a copyleft license but we can see a copyright statement in almost all the under-GPL files...
does the GPL enforces to copy those copyrights if you copy some code ?The entire point of the GPL is to turn copyright against itself; that is, to use copyright to ensure that the code stays free to use and distribute.

To do so, it has to place restrictions upon the code, that say things like "you cannot deny the rights given to you to anyone that you give the program to." This is in contrast to "more free" licenses like BSD which give users the freedom to distribute the program in a manner which does not maintain the freedom to modify the software.

[MatMaul]

so if I understand correctly, as the GPL "ensures that the code stays free to use and distribute", if the code IS free to use, distribute and modify it is ok to put it under GPL because this license ensures that ?

so I think the main problem is does the GPL enforces to copy the copyrights with the code. if yes I think the previous license is compatible because the GPL ensures the only point of this license : the obligation to put the copyright along with the copied code.

[Dark Shikari]

so if I understand correctly, as the GPL "ensures that the code stays free to use and distribute", if the code IS free to use, distribute and modify it is ok to put it under GPL because this license ensures that ?You can include that code with a GPL project as long as you don't change the header, since the original header says you have to include the mentioned copyright.

[MatMaul]

I understand copyright as that :
// Copyright 2002, Donald Kackman
otherwise it would be "license" ?

[Dark Shikari]

I understand copyright as that :

otherwise it would be "license" ?This is the license:// You may freely use or modify this code provided this
// Copyright is included in all derived versions.

[MatMaul]

ok so I ONLY have to copy the copyright, not the license, so if the GPL ensures the mention of the copyright (?) I can just use the GPL and put the correct copyright I think.

[MfA]

GPL mandates an appropriate copyright notice, so yes ... that should be enough.

[MatMaul]

ok thanks, if anyone disagree about the compatibility with the GPL please argue ;)