On Fri, 2017-03-24 at 12:03 -0700, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote: > --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.
There's no legal basis for those figures (I think they're just examples: Mozilla was happy with 95% but that doesn't mean everyone else doing the same thing would have to gain 95%). The more explicit responses you get, the greater your case for having given proper notice, but there's no case law that I'm aware of on the exact percentages. > So far one objection has already surfaced. This is a more compelling problem: if a contributor actively objects within the notice period, the only real recourse is to rewrite their code (or reason them in to acquiescence). James -- openssl-dev mailing list To unsubscribe: https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-dev