On Sat, Oct 11, 2008 at 08:38:23AM +0100, Eric Kow wrote: > On Sat, Oct 11, 2008 at 17:57:29 +1100, Trent W. Buck wrote: > > Unfortunately, release/openssl_ok indicates that correspondents > > were agreeing to exceptions, but not an actual license! I think > > this means we need to talk to everyone who has worked on Darcs so > > far, and get them to agree to license their work under the terms > > of GPL-2 or higher, with the exceptions mentioned in > > release/openssl_ok. > > Oh boy! Is there any chance we can leave the super-yes people alone, > i.e. people who say something to the effect of "I am willing to let the > community or at least David Roundy" decide?
That sounds reasonable to me. (Note that I'm not a legal nut; I'm just stumbling my way through these issues like the rest of you.) > If we are going to do something like this, we should try to make it > a lot easier on oursleves in the future and request (those who are > willing) to assign copyright or whatever it takes to make reduce the > paperwork. Copyright assignment is certainly something to look into; it has other benefits along with merely making licensing issues easier. But I think it would result in MORE, PHYSICAL paperwork -- at least in the short term. >> Eric, would you like to schedule a meeting to discuss this in IRC? >> I'm in the +1100 timezone at the moment, and I'm available all > > >> weekend. > > I will be travelling until Thursday. I expect to be online and > doing some darcs stuff, but there may be some disruptions, at least > over the weekend. Sorry for that! Perhaps next weekend? No worries. These licensing issues are serious and important, but I don't think deferring them for another week is going to make much difference. _______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
