On 22/12/2022 09:39, Julien Pivotto wrote:
On 22 Dec 10:09, Ben Kochie wrote:
It was my understanding that license changes, can be done by the copyright
holder, without consent of all contributors. Because they do not hold any
copyright to the code. IIRC this is how Grafana was able to
On 22 Dec 10:09, Ben Kochie wrote:
> It was my understanding that license changes, can be done by the copyright
> holder, without consent of all contributors. Because they do not hold any
> copyright to the code. IIRC this is how Grafana was able to relicense from
> Apache to AGPL. They did not
On 2022-12-22 09:09, Ben Kochie wrote:
It was my understanding that license changes, can be done by the
copyright holder, without consent of all contributors. Because they do
not hold any copyright to the code. IIRC this is how Grafana was able
to relicense from Apache to AGPL. They did not need
It was my understanding that license changes, can be done by the copyright
holder, without consent of all contributors. Because they do not hold any
copyright to the code. IIRC this is how Grafana was able to relicense from
Apache to AGPL. They did not need to get consent from all contributors.
Yes, I will reach out to GB
On 21 Dec 15:05, Julius Volz wrote:
> Same!
>
> On Tue, Dec 20, 2022 at 4:15 PM Bjoern Rabenstein
> wrote:
>
> > On 13.12.22 11:19, Julien Pivotto wrote:
> > >
> > > In this sense, I think we should ask for an exception to the GB with the
> > > following arguments:
5 matches
Mail list logo
