On 4/5/07, Simon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [snip]
I was thinking about this lately, and I realized that I didn't articulate my actual concern about the license. If the work is dual licensed under the GPL, then it should be ok for someone who is reusing the code to completely replace the dual license blurb with a generic GPL license blurb (leaving the copyright notice in, of course), whereas those two clauses seem to imply that that's not ok to do. That's why I originally said that clause 7 should go to the start, and everything else should get moved out, because if someone relicenses the work under the GPL, they only really need to keep the definitions and the GPL blurb in.
The only people who can (re)license the work are the copyright holders. Since the Traversal license will require commercial agreements, people with read (anonymous or not) access to the svn will only be getting the code under the GPL license. So I guess every file in the svn having traversal copyright and the GPL license might be sufficient for Traversal at anytime to relicense the code, for the read access part of the issue. Anyone who modifies the code who was fetched from the svn(or other future distributions) is making a derivative GPL work, and we can do nothing about that. For write access, requiring every commiter to sign a real physical legal agreement of copyright attribution would be the safest way. Now for mail list patches it might become too much bureaucratic and keep people from helping with small patches, specially in the beginning of the project, but it won't hurt that much. We must be confident in the willingness of people to comply with the rules fi they really want to help the project. But IANAL, and laws might not follow this logic(or lack of it ;) ). Well, there might even be labor laws who might require other needs because of copyright assignment to a profit organization (ie. explicit donation statement, so that it doesn't characterize as slave labor since commiters are not getting paid :) ). Ok, I will stop diverging from the issue, but Traversal do need a lawyer. :) (Sorry for restating previous discussion, but the "someone relicensing" caught my attention)
_______________________________________________ Open-graphics mailing list [email protected] http://lists.duskglow.com/mailman/listinfo/open-graphics List service provided by Duskglow Consulting, LLC (www.duskglow.com)
_______________________________________________ Open-graphics mailing list [email protected] http://lists.duskglow.com/mailman/listinfo/open-graphics List service provided by Duskglow Consulting, LLC (www.duskglow.com)
