Alex Perry wrote: > > I should point out that my earlier message in this thread was to > recommend that Curt not pursue the relicensing because the benefits > are probably too small to outweigh both the non-trivial effort for > the developers and the fairly large risk of causing FGFS to fork.
exactly > I think I've said this before. If I submit a patch against someone > else's file, the patch is intended to inherit the copyright and any > current or future licensing of the containing file or code fragment. I disagree partly. If I submit a patch it'll be under the same licence of the file that it had at the creation of the patch (unless otherwise stated). If anyone (including the author who has written everthing exept a few minor patches) wants to change the licence every author of that file (i.e. the original author and any additonal authors, also those that only fixed a speeling mistake in a sting that never gets printed) must agree - or their work has to be redone in a clean room environment. > When I create a file, or submit a large patch to a file without an > identified copyright owner, the intent is to retain the copyright > in my name and apply _only_ the then-current GPL license version. Who decides if my patch is minor or a large rewrite? Also I haven't heard the phrase "except minor modifications" in the Copyright law... So it's a everybody agrees or no action can be done. CU, Christian -- The idea is to die young as late as possible. -- Ashley Montague _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
