Richard wrote:The author of any file has copyright and can choose whatever licence(s) they please.
If an author chooses a licence then you have to abide by that licence or not distribute.
.
Yes he chose GPL for his work...
Richard wrote:
The issue of mixed licence isn't that complicated. If you distribute something (e.g. a zipfile) that contains even a single GPL file then you need to licence the whole lot as GPL otherwise you have no licence to distribute the GPL file and will be in breach of copyright.
.
The GPL licencee does not have the right to tell me how I can distribute the work.... Just that it be GPL, freely available for all to copy modify and redistribute..
Adding additional powers removes my rights and that is something that GNU have said GPL licence does not do.
Richard wrote:
If you had two zipfiles one that contained the GPL content and one that had everything else then you'll be fine.
.
So it's ok if they distributed together but in different zip files.... Don't talk daft, it's about the rights the individual file author gave his work.... And as long as you're not in breach of that you're fine.
Richard wrote:It is the person that chooses to ignore the author's licence that is wrong in your scenario.
If you want to distribute a file under a different licence then the correct thing to do is to ask the author's permission and not just assume that you can do what you please because the author licenced under the GPL without adhering to the GPL.
The file remains GPL... Even if you distribute it bundled with a CC or any other licence.... Each piece of work has it's own licence.
All a mixed licence scenario does it make it complicated for people.... And we can see from your interpretation bthat you can't deal with complicated.