On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 01:29:53PM +0100, Richard Levitte wrote:

> In message <20170324121435.gq70...@colo.drijf.net> on Fri, 24 Mar 2017 
> 13:14:35 +0100, Otto Moerbeek <o...@drijf.net> said:
> otto> On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 11:53:10AM +0000, Blumenthal, Uri - 0553 - 
> MITLL wrote:
> otto> 
> otto> > I personally think this issue is being blown way out of proportion 
> and beyond the boundary of reason. 
> otto> > 
> otto> > Regards,
> otto> > Uri
> otto> 
> otto> Is it reasonable to step on the rights of authors with the backing of
> otto> large corporations? Individual authors that might have chosen to
> otto> change email address or are unable to be contacted for other reasons?
> otto> 
> otto> It is sad to see the corporate giants dictate the policies of yet
> otto> another open source project, without regard for the spirit of
> otto> copyright law which is to protect the individual author.
> If I'm reading you correctly, *any* license change faces the exact
> same problem.  My interpretation of what you say is that unless we can
> successfully reach all contributors, no exception, we're stuck with
> the current license, probably for life.
> Am I reading you correctly?

Yes, the default is "no, you're not allowed to change the license", not
"yes, you are allowed".

If you do not have explicit permission, the contribution(s) of an
auther must remain under the existing license or be removed. If you do
no want that, you should rewrite that piece so you can attach your
preferred license as author.

openssl-dev mailing list
To unsubscribe: https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-dev

Reply via email to