Hi Robert, Armin, On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 12:05 -0500, Robert Kern wrote: > On 2009-09-18 07:18 AM, Armin Rigo wrote: > > Hi Holger, > > > > On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 03:07:58PM +0200, holger krekel wrote: > >> my understanding: Your contributions - e.g. most of rsync.py - > >> would remain MIT licensed. Execnet distributed as a whole > >> package could only be used under the GPL (if i GPL my parts > >> and future work), however. Does that match your understanding? > > > > I'm afraid not; I'm thinking notably about the reorganization of the > > execnet code I did long ago (around r13661), which still leaves e.g. 109 > > lines from me in channel.py (30%). I'm not really going to enforce my > > position in any way because I'm happy to stick with old versions of > > execnet for my own usage, but I'm just saying that I would informally > > consider this as *slightly* unfair reuse of my part of the work. Well, > > you might want to investigate the position of other people too (e.g. > > cfbolz and jan, who also have lines in channel.py). > > MIT licensed code may be combined with GPLed code to make a combined work > that > is distributed under the GPL. That's one of the things that you gave > permission > for people to do when you licensed your code under the MIT license. Your MIT > license is still attached to your code, and Holger needs to make sure that he > maintains the correct attribution and MIT license statement for your and > others' > code. Strictly speaking, he is not relicensing your code, just incorporating > it > according to the very permissive terms that you granted him.
right, thanks for the clarification. However, i can see some slight unfairness because i am breaking the possible assumtion that not only my past but also my future work would be published without any restrictions. best, holger _______________________________________________ py-dev mailing list py-dev@codespeak.net http://codespeak.net/mailman/listinfo/py-dev
