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

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

Le Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 09:06:43PM +0200, Andrei Popescu a écrit :
> On Vi, 27 ian 12, 23:05:13, Charles Plessy wrote:
> > 
> > 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.

For the relicensing, I think that the agreeing side is the reverse.  Past
contributors do not have to agree.  They own the copyright of their
contribution.  Debian has to agree with the license they chose, or refuse the
contribution.  If the contributors propose as a license, that Debian and any
other recipient can use, at their option, the MIT or the GPL-2+, then Debian
can redistribute these contribution under the same terms.

I think that there will be much confusion if we ask people to license their
work under “MIT and GPL-2+” and then release it under “MIT or GPL-2+”.

The intention is to make the contributors work available under the terms
written at http://www.debian.org/license, and to achieve this, I think that
there is no necessity to do some flip-flop with “and” and “or”.

This is well underlined by the fact that that when people exchange
contributions under the GPL-2+, the terms are always “or (at your option) any
later…”.  Wouldn't it be inconsistent to ask relicensing under “MIT and (GPL-2
or GPL-3+)” ?

Have a nice Sunday,

Charles Plessy
Debian Med packaging team,
Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan

Reply to: