Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
Andreas Roehler writes:
> BTW, can't conceive any real legal hindrance from relicensing
> files with GPLv3, because the rights of the authors are
> not touched.
Huh? Licensing is *the* right that is reserved to the authors.
Look at the cases, where author already gave a statement, as its done with v2 saying
"or any later version".
From this you may assume by circumstances of declaring software free,
will not object here. Somehow the code must be come into, probably not
the will of the author.
> IMHO you may distribute free software, if no license is
If no license is specified, then all rights are reserved to the
copyright holders. You can distribute, betting on the good will of
the copyright holders, but you *will* lose if they sue.
Therefor suing others in any free-software case is such a bad example,
making that much harm to the idea.
Sure, if anyone complains in the circumstances at stake, you should remove its code the
But then a sue should be neither be probable nor successful. (As you can't sue things
you already got, normally.)
IMO, lets take the remaining risks for the sake of further development. Lets go on
Lets the re-examining work still go on, if you mean its necessary, but don't
let it delay the main thing.
XEmacs-Beta mailing list