--On Friday, March 24, 2017 12:30 PM -0700 James Bottomley <james.bottom...@hansenpartnership.com> wrote:

Probably illegal and definitely immoral, in my opinion. Copyright law
exists to protect authors from these kind of practises.

I think you misunderstand the legal situation.  Provided notice is
sufficiently widely distributed and a reasonable period is allowed for
objections it will become an estoppel issue after the licence is
changed, which means anyone trying to object after the fact of the
change will have to get a court order based on irreperable harm and
show a good faith reason for not being able to object in the time
period allowed.  In the US, this sort of notice plus period for
objection is standard for quite a few suits and the range of things
which qualify as "good faith reason" are correspondingly very limited.

It's not clear to me that that's correct. From <http://blogs.fsfe.org/ciaran/?p=58> (See update), it appears you need an explicit 95% permission rate to legally relicense and zero objections. So far one objection has already surfaced.



Quanah Gibson-Mount
Product Architect
Symas Corporation
Packaged, certified, and supported LDAP solutions powered by OpenLDAP:

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

Reply via email to