Re: IBM public license
Richard Braakman <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> Henning Makholm wrote:
> > > Hmm, but it does not say "it must be made available _solely_ under
> > > this Agreement".
> > An interesting word game, but I think that a permission to relicense
> > a work under arbitrary terms needs to be a little more explicit than
> > this.
> Well... you don't _need_ permission to relicense.
I do, if my new license allows people to do things to the software
that they have not been allowed to by the original author.
> If a license allows redistribution, then by default you can
> redistribute under whatever terms you like.
We're not in a default situation. The license itself explicitly
specifies that I must use the same license for source redistribution.
> That the terms of the GPL do not conflict with the requirements the IPL
> places on redistribution.
They do. IPL requires that a Contributor must allow downstream users
to release his code in object form without redistributing source code.
GPL allows no such requirement.