Daniel Carrera wrote:Diane Mackay wrote:
Changing all works, without explicit permission, seems wrong to me.
Changing anyone's work without explicit permission is both wrong and illegal. That's the point. Anything we have for which we either cannot find the original author, or for which the author doesn't give permission, cannot be used and would have to be rewritten. That's what Jean was saying.
I'm sorry. I thought Jean was asking for what others thought, so I wrote in what
I thought. That is the only reason I wrote. I had no intention of agreeing or
disagreeing or arguing or clarifying. My only point was to write in what I
thought about the license change. Please excuse me. I will stay quiet now, as I
do not know much about this subject, nor do I care too much about it in general.
Diane, my question (to which you responded) was not well worded, so I think it was perfectly reasonable of you to have responded to my note as you did. You addressed the second step in the process, but my note didn't make clear that I had two steps in mind: the first step is to get a general consensus of opinion, and the second step is to contact individuals for permission.
All of that was in my mind, but didn't make it into the note. (Daniel knew what I mean, but didn't say, because we had discussed this a bit offlist previously.)
I should have been more clear that my question was to gauge an overall opinion about the license itself: is it a good idea or not? Ralph Aichinger has brought up a possible problem, which we'll be checking out.
If the general consensus is that changing the license is a good idea, then the next step is to contact each author and ask for explicit agreement to make the change. (Or people can write to the list before then and say "I'm happy to have the license changed for my work," like Ian Laurenson did.)
Regards, Jean
