Re: Doubts and Ideas
- To: email@example.com
- Subject: Re: Doubts and Ideas
- From: Don Armstrong <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 19:55:26 -0700
- Message-id: <20070601025526.GP7113@archimedes.ucr.edu>
- Mail-followup-to: email@example.com
- In-reply-to: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- References: <4659F628.email@example.com> <20070530140825.GB13409@keid.carnet.hr> <20070530155125.GA1031@javifsp.no-ip.org> <20070530163849.GA14362@keid.carnet.hr> <20070531012344.GH7113@archimedes.ucr.edu> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
On Thu, 31 May 2007, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> I am willing to relicense my contributions under the GPL v2; but I
> am not willing to assign my copyright away.
Yeah, this is precisely why I think giving an unrestrictive license to
SPI acting at the direction of Debian should be an option; some people
want to keep their copyrights. [I personally don't care much, so long
as at the end of the day, I can do with my work what I wish.]
> I specifically do not trust the SPI enough to allow them to
> relicense my work in the future.
This sort of relicensing should be done at the direction of Debian; we
could even write up the license assignment so this was required. Plus,
the worst that could happen is the work would become closer to PD; it
wouldn't be capable of going backwards in freedom granted.
Would such a license be acceptable to you?
It has always been Debian's philosophy in the past to stick to what
makes sense, regardless of what crack the rest of the universe is
-- Andrew Suffield in 20030403211305.GD29698@doc.ic.ac.uk