On Tue, Jan 04, 2005 at 10:25:49PM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote: > Nathanael Nerode wrote: > > scott@netsplit.com wrote: > >>So here's a hypothetical situation; say the current upstream maintainer > >>was to announce in a very public place, with Cc's to all known > >>contributor e-mail addresses, his intent to change the licence of the > >>code to GPL-2 (including documentation) and give a full list of > >>everything that would fall under it. And then was to give a period (say > >>28 days) for objections to be raised. > >> > >>If none were raised, could they then change the licence? > > > > No. > > > > :-P > > > > Yes, this is what SUCKS about current copyright law. The presumption is "All > > rights reserved unless you have explicit permission". > > Somehow, I doubt you'd say that about a GPL-licensed package with one > author who wants to grant a proprietary license to make money. The only > difference between this situation and that one is that we like the > license change in one of them. :) Frankly, I think we were better off in the days when copyright had to be explicitly claimed. Anybody who doesn't know enough to claim it obviously doesn't know enough to license the damn thing properly either. That would cut out a lot of the crap we see. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature