On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 6:56 PM, Aryeh Gregor <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 6:16 PM, Chad <[email protected]> wrote: >> Who do we consider significant? Would it be possible to get >> consensus on a relicensing? > > As far as I know, the way the GPL works makes it effectively > impossible to relicense a large project to something more permissive. > You'd have to get permission from literally everyone who made > nontrivial contributions, or else rewrite their code. But if there's > serious interest in this, someone should get an official opinion from > Wikimedia's lawyers on how (or if) it could be done. > > Personally, I don't see any problem with a parser library being GPL. > You can still link it with proprietary code as long as you don't > distribute the result, so it would be fine for research projects or > similar that rely on proprietary components. You can always *use* > GPLd code however you like. If you want to *distribute* proprietary > (or otherwise GPL-incompatible) code that depends on my volunteer > contributions, I'm happy to tell you to go jump off a bridge. >
I was just speculating. I don't have any problems with the GPL :) -Chad _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
