On Fri, 16 Jun 2000, Brian Behlendorf wrote: > > I think I understand what the license is trying to say (that non-GPL > > licenses are available from the author, if you don't want to be bound > > by the terms of the GPL?), but the way it's currently worded is > > incredibly sloppy and fails the DFSG. > > That blurb simply states a fact (that the copyright holder has the right > to relicense), and I'm not sure how stating a fact is contrary to the > DFSG. Of course, the licensor better make sure they get copyright > assignment from all contributors, otherwise that fact becomes invalid, > strictly speaking.
As has been discussed on the reiserfs mail list ot everyone's satisfaction. Andrew
