--- Comment #4 from christ...@quelltextlich.at ---
(In reply to Dan Andreescu from comment #3)
> Since Roger is the guy asking for the license change, I think we're ok :)
IANAL. Maybe I was not CCed on those emails, but in the emails I saw,
he did not ask us to switch to Apache license, Version 2.0.
Instead, he only said that GPL on our code would not work for him.
Those are different things, and it is especially no endorsement to
relicense /his/ work under Apache license, Version 2.0.
After we suggested that re-licensing to Apache license, Version 2.0 might
not be undoable, he asked us whether we can make it happen. But at that
point in time, the repo did not yet contain his code, nor has it been
submitted for review.
So again, no endorsement to relicense /his/ work under Apache license,
You could probably argue around intentions and that stuff, but by what
I learnt about legal things is that assumptions and intentions are
always a source of confusion, and that they cost lots of time and
money. Whenever possible and uncontroversial, do make things explicit.
Especially, if it is as cheap as an email.
So up to now:
* Roger contributed to the still GPL kraken repo.
* We have no written waiver from him that he is ok with the license
* Up to my knowledge, we did not even try to get it.
P.S.: By our conversation with Roger, I also would not expect that
Roger opposes the license change. But maybe it's not only his own
decision, but also the decision of the company he's working for. I've
seen such issues getting in the way and taking >3 months of back/forth
between companies, although it was only like 4 small patches and both
parties wanted to make it happen.
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Wikibugs-l mailing list