Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
Andreas Roehler writes:
> 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".
No, I'm sorry, that is no help legally, or ethically. There are many
many people who have put one license on one file and another on a
different one, for whatever reason.
Hmm, maybe could someone help me with an example?
If you publish the whole thing under GPLv3, well, then it's your responsability
you are the publisher, declaring conditions of use, delivering the code.
Could any author of free software, its code being part of XEmacs now, see his rights
Can't imagine that.
Is a known case out there, where such thing happened?
The only real risk I see, is, someone might have sent in code taken from other
- non-free - sources. But thats not to cure with a renewed declaration then.
XEmacs-Beta mailing list