On Sat, Jun 10, 2017 at 08:58:30PM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote: > On Sat, Jun 10, 2017 at 07:41:24PM +0100, Thomas Adam wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 08:47:15PM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote: > > > I don't see how this is fixable without either removing all of > > > Rob's code or changing Github's terms and conditions. I see no > > > problems between D.4 and D.5 and the GPL though. > > > > Gitlab might be an option, but that would require me to set the > > infrastructure > > up there again -- something I'm not willing to do at all. Frankly, we lose > > more than we gain. > > I'm not crazy about switching either. > > > The other option we have is contacting Rob Nation and asking him if he's > > happy > > for his terms to change. I would be *amazed* if there's much of any of his > > original code left to such an extent where his original copyright notice > > even > > means anything, not to mention, it was written such a long time ago as well. > > > > I can certainly try and contact him. > > Good idea, please do.
I have spent quite a lot of time trying to do just this, without any success. I cannot find a valid email address or mailing address for Rob Nation who worked on FVWM originally. Indeed, my next idea would be to look at just how much of Rob's original code exists in current FVWM, such that his original copyright applies. In recent times, I've observed other projects---such as openssl---blindly giving people a time-boxed ultimatum through which the license changes[0]. So we could go down this route---indeed, I see nothing wrong with the analysis at any rate. Now that we're using Git, this should be easier to do. It's interesting to note that like openssl, we're a similarly-aged project, and they managed this. Maybe we can too. Thoughts? -- Thomas Adam [0] https://www.openssl.org/blog/blog/2017/03/22/license/
