From: | Jimmy Kaplowitz <jimmy(at)spi-inc(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Bruce Perens <bruce(at)perens(dot)com> |
Cc: | spi-general(at)lists(dot)spi-inc(dot)org, Ian Jackson <ijackson(at)chiark(dot)greenend(dot)org(dot)uk> |
Subject: | Re: Copyright issues re Debian website |
Date: | 2008-03-07 18:06:57 |
Message-ID: | 20080307180657.GI2793@techhouse.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox |
Thread: | |
Lists: | spi-general |
On Fri, Mar 07, 2008 at 09:58:55AM -0800, Bruce Perens wrote:
> Jimmy Kaplowitz wrote:
> >"Consolidated copyright of code also allows for the possibility of
> >relicensing the whole code base should that become desirable.
> It is definitely easier to relicense a program when you own the entire
> copyright, because you don't have to give anyone notice. But nothing
> there says it's the only possible method.
It doesn't say that consolidated copyright is the only method, true.
But, the full bit of text I quoted does say that you need the unanimous
agreement of every single contributor [i.e. copyright holder] if the
copyright is not owned by one entity. Here's the relevant bit (all-caps
words are my emphasis):
"Without aggregated copyright, EVERY SINGLE CONTRIBUTOR must be
contacted AND UNANIMITY REACHED in order to relicense a code base, or
parts of the code must be reimplemented. This is true for all but the
most permissively-licensed open source projects."
Please quote less selectively and read more closely in the future.
- Jimmy Kaplowitz
jimmy(at)spi-inc(dot)org
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Perens | 2008-03-07 18:20:08 | Re: Copyright issues re Debian website |
Previous Message | Bruce Perens | 2008-03-07 17:58:55 | Re: Copyright issues re Debian website |