Hi, Il 07/08/19 12:23, Mihai Moldovan ha scritto: >> - include in the announcement that any party objecting must contact >> the developers at BLAH (email list address, or list of developer >> email addresses) > That's not the way this stuff works. You have to assume objection UNTIL given > permission. I wonder if that would be a fitting metaphor: a burglar justifying > his actions by giving the sleeping original occupants an ample amount of time, > say, 10 minutes, to answer the question if they'd be okay with him taking > valuables. Since they haven't responded, he assumed that it's fine to proceed. > More tongue-in-cheek, naturally, but still somewhat fitting. Agreed. There is no way to obtain tacit permission for anything except what the copyright holder has already declared (except for copyright expiration, but that takes veeery long). In order to relicense, explicit permission must be given by each of the copyright holders. Exceptions can possibly be made for trivial contributions by reasoning that they are so simple that they cannot be considered copyrightable, but that's a very risky way. If some copyright holder (or their heirs) cannot be contacted or do not agree, their contributions must be removed and possibly rewritten, and again this entails a lot of risk, because it's on those who are relicensing to prove that they removed all the contributions by such copyright holder and that what was written to patch the removal is actually independent. Giovanni. -- Giovanni Mascellani <g.mascellani@gmail.com> Postdoc researcher - Université Libre de Bruxelles
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature