On Thu, Jun 13, 2002 at 02:17:11PM +0000, Dave P wrote: > > > > On Thu, 13 Jun 2002, Richard Zidlicky wrote: > > > On Thu, Jun 13, 2002 at 12:56:31AM +0100, Roy Wood wrote: > > > > > No licence is set in stone (as Steve Hall remarked to me on the day > > > before I left for the US show) and you can always change it later if it > > > proves not to work. > > > > you can't. Once other people contributed you need permission from > > every single contributor to change the license and this can prove > > quite tricky. 1000 times trickier than fixing the original license. > > This is incorrect. The current license states that once contributed, code > cannot be withdrawn, and that the contributor has surrendered their > copyright claim to TT. Therefore, only TT needs to consent to a license > change.
Wrong. You do not withdraw the code, you simply do not give permission to use or distribute under a different license. If Wolfgang thinks that the submitter should in advance give permission to every thinkable change of the licence than he must definitely write it explicitly into the licence or require special formalities when accepting code. The license as is clearly does not say this.. maybe simply a problem with formulation but I would consider this a *very* *big* problem. > If you think this is bad, well, you surrender the same control under the > GPL. not quite the same. It says version X or any later version of GPL at your choice. However this section is not part of GPL so you can always limit it to GPL version 2 for example. Richard
