Le 25/01/2012 20:12, Charles Plessy a écrit : > Le Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 01:09:08PM -0400, David Prévot a écrit : >> >> I propose to send them the following message, and will gladly accept >> your remarks before actually sending it: > I think that it should be MIT *or* GPL-2+, to match the license > of the new files. That's a good question: I thought, since we offer the content in dual licensing (people who receive it are free to use it under the terms of the MIT *or* GPL2+), that we (the authors) have to offer it under both licenses (MIT *and* GPL2+), but my understanding of legal logic can be flawed. > I will be happy to sign this. In case permissions to relicense have no formal > value, I will in addition sign the same same text, with “give permission to” > removed. So the text should be more direct, right? Here are the two more direct proposals, “and” and “or” versions, don't know which one is compliant with what we intend to ask. ----------------------8<--- [AND version ] ---8<---------------------- I hereby relicense all the material that I have provided to the Debian website under the terms of the MIT (Expat) License and of the GNU General Public License, version 2 and any later version. ---------------------->8---------------------->8---------------------- ----------------------8<---- [OR version ] ---8<---------------------- I hereby relicense all the material that I have provided to the Debian website under the terms of the MIT (Expat) License or of the GNU General Public License, version 2 or any later version. ---------------------->8---------------------->8---------------------- Regards David
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature