thank you for your reply. In fact, I really overlooked the passage you are pointing out ("GPL" is an eye catcher for commercial developers
), however, I do not see how that helps in assessing the licensing constraints. In particular:
[*] In that context, I would interpret the term "derived" in the sense of "derived work" which is frequently used in GUN's license agreements. Not being a lawyer, this would mean to me that this file is still licensed under GPL terms.
[*] Since absolutely no source code from the original GPL file is present any more, what was the reason for adding the passage "this file was..." rather than just deleting the reference to the GPL and providing it under the license terms which apply for the code that OFFIS developed?