Re: How to (radically) fork an LGPL project?

[Barry Margolin]

In article <5TYzc.188756$WA4.48243@twister.nyc.rr.com>,
 Kenny Tilton <ktilton@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, barmar@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***