[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Bug#388141: Let's ask for a relicensing agreement

On Vi, 27 ian 12, 23:05:13, Charles Plessy wrote:
> I do not see the need for the following complications:
>  1) giving the permission to relicense instead of relicensing directly.

>  2) complex license semantics where one can write: license is “MIT or GPL-2+”.
> I have not seen anywhere else asymetric uses of “and” and “or” depending on
> who is the donor and who is the receiver.  For instance, “GPL-2” is always
> “or (at your option) any later…”.

Disagree. As far as I understood the choice of dual licensing for the 
entire site is intentional.

For this to work *all* contributors have to agree to *both* MIT/Expat 
and GPL-2+. Otherwise, because of the copyleft nature of the GPL, the 
site will be GPL *only* even if only a small part is not dual licensed.

> Why not simply:
> ----------------------8<----------------------8<----------------------
> The material that I have provided to the Debian website is hereby
> licensed under the terms of the MIT (Expat) License or, at your option,
> of the GNU General Public License; either version 2 of the License, or
> (at your option) any later version.
> ----------------------8<----------------------8<----------------------

- the first "or" needs to be "and"
- the "(at your option)" does not fit very well here, since we are 
  asking contributors to relicense, not receivers to use whatever later 
  version they want

Here's my take:


All contributions that I have provided to the Debian website (including 
but not limited to original writings, translations, designs, or scripts) 
are hereby licensed under the terms of both the MIT (Expat) License and 
of the GNU General Public License version 2 of the License or any later.


Kind regards,
Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers:

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: