David Tenser wrote: > Add to that the fact that some of the work is based on my original > content, and I was never asked to approve an MPL license on that text. > That's probably just good in this case, though, since that means we can > apply whatever license we want for those files, right?
If you own the copyright, yes, you can choose what licence you like, as long as no-one else has contributed to the file. >> Relicensing is time-consuming and messy. What advantage do we get from >> doing it? If we are going to relicense, please ask for CC-BY-SA 3.0 >> _or_later_ rather than just 3.0. Makes things much more future-proof. > > This doesn't sound like a pressing issue to me. Just adding the current > license at the end of these articles should work for now. Please correct > me if I'm wrong, though. That's certainly legal :-) > The CC-BY-SA _or later_ sounds like a separate discussion that I'd like > to find out more about before commenting on here. It's what we do for DevMo; it's because new versions of CC licences often have useful features. For example, the next one might have GFDL compatibility. Gerv _______________________________________________ legal mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/legal
