Em Fri, 21 Nov 2014 19:46:42 -0800
Isaac Dunham <[email protected]> escrow:
> At least one minor contribution (the script desktop2dt, which converts
> some *.desktop files to the type of file CDE expects) is under a
> permissive "MIT" license:
>
> # Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person
> obtaining a # copy of this software and associated documentation
> files (the "Software"), # to deal in the Software without
> restriction, including without limitation # the rights to use, copy,
> modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, # and/or sell copies
> of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the # Software is
> furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions: #
> # The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be
> included in # all copies or substantial portions of the Software.
> #
> <insert standard disclaimer of warranty here>
>
> The copyright for this file is mine.
>
> I would like to let it be known that while I have indicated that the
> CDE project may relicense my work, the above license does not permit
> replacement with another license.
>
> If you fork CDE, you have all the permissions granted by the text of
> the license, but *not* the ability to relicense the script in
> question.
You can't retroactively change the license of a program, even if you
are the copyright holder. As your work stands now, we can re-license
it, as long as we comply with the license: that's preserving the
notices. It's the whole point of permissive licenses. If you happen
to change your license to a GPLv3+ incompatible one, we would
re-license the latest permissive-licensed version of it. You should
give up permissiveness, or live up with that.
> I would also like to request, but not require, that the maintainer not
> relicense this file under a less permissive license.
It's perfectly legal to just ignore your request.
> Considering that a script is interpreted, I'm not sure that there's
> much chance of copyleft vs. permissive making a difference for this
> file.
Why do you say that? For example, copyleft would prevent people from
making proprietary versions of it that could possibly limit
redistribution.
> And I'm ready to apply the same principle to my own standalone C code:
> what I wrote for my pleasure is out there regardless whether someone
> else provides source code, and the risk of careless violation of the
> license is of more concern to me.
If you are the copyright holder that can't possibly be a concern!
Just ignore the violations. Being the copyright holder, only you can
enforce the license.
> If someone grabs a copy of a binary without a license, then shares it
> with someone else, I don't want to be responsible for making it a
> violation of the license.
So don't prosecute them --- it's virtually the same, and that's all.
--
,= ,-_-. =. Bruno Félix Rezende Ribeiro (oitofelix) [0x28D618AF]
((_/)o o(\_)) There is no system but GNU;
`-'(. .)`-' GNU Linux-Libre is one of its official kernels;
\_/ All software must be free as in freedom;
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Download BIRT iHub F-Type - The Free Enterprise-Grade BIRT Server
from Actuate! Instantly Supercharge Your Business Reports and Dashboards
with Interactivity, Sharing, Native Excel Exports, App Integration & more
Get technology previously reserved for billion-dollar corporations, FREE
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=157005751&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
_______________________________________________
cdesktopenv-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cdesktopenv-devel
