[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: GPL and LGPL not acceptable for Fedora!

Hash: SHA1

Jima wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Aug 2007, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
>> As an alternative, we could have some boilerplate that specifically
>> explains the situation  to the upstream author when we encounter a bare
>> "GPL" in the source code:
>  I emailed an upstream with a similar message yesterday when I
> encountered a COPYING file but no copyright/licensing-related comments
> in the source. They responded immediately agreeing that they should add
> copyright information, and even going so far as to ask my opinion on
> whether they should use a specific version of the GPL or not.  (Wow,
> what a cooperative upstream.)  FWIW, this was Coraid, upstream for
> aoetools and vblade.
>  I'm definitely a proponent of contacting upstream for clarification.
> Hopefully all of them will be so friendly, especially since clearing
> this up now could save them problems down the road.
I don't forsee any difficulties when upstream is actively developing the
software.  It's when upstream is dead or has hundreds of contributors
that we could run into problems.  If upstream is dead I suppose that
assuming GPL+ or GPLv2+ makes no difference as upstream won't complain
and change the license later :-)

If upstream is merely unresponsive (extended "vacation" someone new
picks up development later, etc) we could run into problems where
upstream's stance upon resumption conflicts with ours.

If upstream has hundreds of contributors, we have to decide what to
license as while they hash out how to deal with the situation (Looks
like legally they can put it to a vote of the current contributors as to
what version they want at that point.)

- -Toshio
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]