| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
miroR
l33t
Joined: 05 Mar 2008
Posts: 826
|
 Posted: Sat May 02, 2015 6:50 pm Post subject: Use GPLv2+ for a program to release, is best? |
 |
|
Use GPLv2+ for a program to release, is best?
---
I'm preparing a program (just a set of bash scripts) for an incomplete release:
http://www.croatiafidelis.hr/gnu/Flowstamp/
incomplete in the sense not that I would withhold any functionality of it, but that some functionality need a few more days or even weeks for me to get it right, and I don't have that kind of time.
I intend to release it on https://github.com/miroR (but I might also try gitlab.com, not sure).
There is one thing that I struggle to solve myself: the license to choose.
I see some people that I very much respect choose BSD license (the new one, I guess, without the advertisement clause).
But the BSD license does not require the derivative from your program to remain free in the good GNU sense (I do have some beef with Richard Matthew Stallman, and it's because he support SELinux which I hate, and you can see the people from GNU debugger have thrown obstacles at the feet of my heroes Spender and PaX Team:
GNU debugger checking for PaX and refusing to work with it
https://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-1011162.html
or view the bug:
GNU debugger employed via Postfix crashed PaX hardened kernel
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=541104
but the GNU license I never will subtract from RMS, the v2 is just the best...
However, I see people are massively using:
GPLv2+: GNU GPL version 2 or later
so that their programs can be used with the GPL version 3 as well...
Is that really the best option?
Nothing seems to come anywhere close to the use of GPLv2+ it appears to me... (I grep'd through /usr/bin and /bin/ the other day)...
The GPLv3 does appear to be oome bucking under some pressure, with the M$/Tivo and such (didn't go in depth about it, no time)...
For a short while I cosidered CreativeCommons BY-SA (
E.g. the code put on:
http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/271293/use-stack-overflow-answer-in-gpl-software-how-to-ask-for-permission
is "put under cc by-sa 3.0 license automatically"
-- I dropped BY-NC-SA because of:
The case for Free use: reasons not to use a Creative Commons -NC license
https://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/compliance-guide.html
--
)
but CC is not GPL compatible...
This was an eye-opener:
Make Your Open Source Software GPL-Compatible. Or Else.
http://www.dwheeler.com/essays/gpl-compatible.html
I would only have wanted exactly the "advertizing clause" actually... My name and my www.CroatiaFidelis.hr address which, the CC gives both (the:
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/legalcode
the 4.0 is actually great in some respects, and cleaner thatn 3.0...
And I don't know if I can get that... for my unsavvily made program made of bash scripts... the Flowstamp... with the GPLv2+ license. Or can I?
I searched and understood that it is a nuissance to go through full institutional copyright, but still possible, even after the release (and the poor man's release has probaly already happened, but I will still consider my publishing it on github.com the real [incomplete] release)...
And I know that I can put the copyright bug anyway without any need for any instututions, and that it must be reckoned with.
Don't know what else to put forward.
But I know many people on Gntoo Forums know so much more and have so much, so much more experience and understanding than I do.
So maybe someone could enlighten me further.
Thanks if I get any advice, and allow, if I get into any difficulties (and I am both very often censored and have other issues) [and allow] a little delay for my replies in case of your advice/suggestion/optinion! |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mv
Watchman
Joined: 20 Apr 2005
Posts: 6747
|
| Posted: Sat May 02, 2015 7:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
IMHO, every time spent on thinking about such problems is wasted:
Big companies give a damn about any license and use the code anyway if they want to. As an exmaple, look at all the violations of GPL where mplayer was used illegally.
So unless you are very rich and can afford a lawyer to actually accuse such companies and make money from it - forget the dream that your licensing has any meaning for them.
The only other thing which can happen if you choose the wrong license is that some fundamentality of Debian or some other group will refuse inclusion into some distribution because of some invented legal reasons: Think about cdrecord and other valuable software being thrown out from Debian (and thus of Ubuntu) due to such ghost discussions. Some other software was thrown out as "unfree", because of a note that it should not be used to kill people. The BSD is the one I expect to cause least problems with such fundamentalists. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
steveL
Watchman
Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 5153
Location: The Peanut Gallery
|
| Posted: Sat May 02, 2015 7:38 pm Post subject: Re: Use GPLv2+ for a program to release, is best? |
|
|
| miroR wrote: | | Use GPLv2+ for a program to release, is best? |
Yes. 2+ allows it to be used with just about any Free project. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
szatox
Advocate
Joined: 27 Aug 2013
Posts: 3149
|
| Posted: Sun May 03, 2015 5:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
miroR, as long as you are the only one involved you can change this licence at any time. There are quite a few projects available with multilple licences, so one can chose whatever he likes most.
The problem starts when others help you as at this point the code is theirs as well, so you can't change licence anyore without their agreement.
Now, different licences have been created to meet different goals, so there is no "one size fits all" licence. If you want an extremaly permissive one, you might even consider public domain. I think that's how IP stack became popular.
Not like it made a big difference though. As mv mentioned, you are too small to enforce it anyway. Oh, and by the way, you are also too small for anyone to bother with you violating their licences. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ryao
Retired Dev
Joined: 27 Feb 2012
Posts: 132
|
| Posted: Sun May 03, 2015 8:31 pm Post subject: Re: Use GPLv2+ for a program to release, is best? |
|
|
| steveL wrote: | | miroR wrote: | | Use GPLv2+ for a program to release, is best? |
Yes. 2+ allows it to be used with just about any Free project. |
The LGPLv2.1+ would be a better choice from the perspective of compatibility with other F/OSS licenses. I have met people who prefer to license their code under the Apache 2.0 license (which is theoretically as compatible as the LGPLv2.1+) because they assume that LGPL can degrade to the GPL under certain circumstances. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
miroR
l33t
Joined: 05 Mar 2008
Posts: 826
|
| Posted: Mon May 04, 2015 4:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mv wrote: | IMHO, every time spent on thinking about such problems is wasted:
Big companies give a damn about any license and use the code anyway if they want to. As an exmaple, look at all the violations of GPL where mplayer was used illegally.
So unless you are very rich and can afford a lawyer to actually accuse such companies and make money from it - forget the dream that your licensing has any meaning for them. |
Yeay, I know of the issue of M$ using grsecurity in their Skype! And surely what could spender have done, without all the lawyers he would have needed to pay moneys to get anything done!
That's why I liked many (well, not so many, but still) people reading about it as I tried shouting about it as loud as I could, pasting the links, plus adding titiles, from my Grsecurity tips:
Pls. the links for your kind perusal:
Skype does away with random supernodes
http://expertmiami.blogspot.com/2012/05/skype-does-away-with-random-supernodes.html
Skype replaces P2P supernodes with Linux boxes hosted by Microsoft
http://arstechnica.com/business/2012/05/skype-replaces-p2p-supernodes-with-linux-boxes-hosted-by-microsoft/
(
and my tip where I shouted about it is on Debian Forums:
Grsecurity/Pax installation on Debian GNU/Linux
http://forums.debian.net/viewtopic.php?t=108616#p516896
)
| mv wrote: | | The only other thing which can happen if you choose the wrong license is that some fundamentality of Debian or some other group will refuse inclusion into some distribution because of some invented legal reasons: Think about cdrecord and other valuable software being thrown out from Debian (and thus of Ubuntu) due to such ghost discussions. |
Yeay, I remember Joerg Schilling Schilly and how cdrecord really was superior to anything else in FOSS for CD burning, the discussion about SCSI vs /dev/sdX, and I remember how (where was it in Debian or in SuSE?), they played not nicely with his code, and the row that got him nowhere...
And how Debian started wodim based on old cdrecord code... Great to see that Gentoo was faithful to cdrecord all along...
| mv wrote: | | Some other software was thrown out as "unfree", because of a note that it should not be used to kill people. The BSD is the one I expect to cause least problems with such fundamentalists. |
Yeay, but I like so much the abilitiy of the GNU software to not be used without all the freedom for the user, and that the code that derives must be free as GNU!
Does the BSD keep that. I think not. The code can be as commercial as they want. So the BSD license in that sense deminishes freedom for the world (or do I get something wrong here?) ...and I care for FOSS and hate proprietary!
I don't know when I get the time for squashfs (I need plenty to get to understand matters really advanced), but I would really like to get to use it for my wish to check mirror before the use as I --WARNING, esp. my friend SteveL  -- very imperfectly made a tentative here:
Broken Pipe on Air-Gapped (and Verifying Your Mirror)
https://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-1001706.html
but I know I read that you put squashfs under BSD, Martin Vaeth.
So dispell my doubts, mv, if you can about "BSD license in that sense deminishes freedom for the world" because of not imposing free code for derivatives, can you? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
miroR
l33t
Joined: 05 Mar 2008
Posts: 826
|
| Posted: Mon May 04, 2015 4:26 am Post subject: Re: Use GPLv2+ for a program to release, is best? |
|
|
| ryao wrote: | | steveL wrote: | | miroR wrote: | | Use GPLv2+ for a program to release, is best? |
Yes. 2+ allows it to be used with just about any Free project. |
The LGPLv2.1+ would be a better choice from the perspective of compatibility with other F/OSS licenses. I have met people who prefer to license their code under the Apache 2.0 license (which is theoretically as compatible as the LGPLv2.1+) because they assume that LGPL can degrade to the GPL under certain circumstances. |
Thanks, ryao and steveL!
I have to find time and read the details, well the whole of those licenses, LGPLv2.1+ and the Apache 2.0 license. It's all in /usr/portage/licenses...
But I was wondering. My code will be only bash, and it does the work mostly fine only for spal (768x576), and even mencoder now defaults to simple pal (720x576), after they fixed the recording from stuff like composite input on a TV-hybrid card like my old Hauppauge's few that I have...
And I can't fix that.
And I can't find time any soon at all, to learn python which would make it (would it?) possibly portable, if rewritten in python, my program, in all arches including the M$ Windoze, the dominant proprietary which I can't help hating, seeing how they thrived on laziness and ignorance of the world (or so often plain lack of resources of the poor of the world), the moral robbers that they are (or morally robbers, yes!)...
But the Schwindoze is needed that a program be installable onto...
I was wonderng, if it were to be accepted by FOSS, my name should remain there (unless some people like those that hate me for really no reason don't take it over, and I occasinally meet such, and you, dear friends do, such is, with such elements, the crowd, as steveL hinted to me somewhere, time ago)...
But I was thinking, my name should remain there even if the program is rewritten in python (I only guess python is what would work best for working the program under all the arches, I really know some bash and so very little of C and of any other programming languages)...
[My name should remain there even if the program is rewritten in python] but someone else, should it?
And if also I sort the:
http://www.croatiafidelis.hr/gnu/Flowstamp/
would it be too much to expect that that address be included if someone takes over the program, which I will gladly allow that they do...
I know that is up to copyright... I know best copyright is in the country that annexed the world to itself through internet, the kind, urgh, superpower the U.S., even for foreigners, but it's such a hassle, and no moneys here to defend myself...
I will put the copyright bug and my name and year on the top of all the scripts, I will, surely.
Aarghh...
And I got in troubles unrelated, such as lost a file with my own mistyping, and have to undelete it with Sleuthkit... Gotta go. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
steveL
Watchman
Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 5153
Location: The Peanut Gallery
|
| Posted: Mon May 04, 2015 1:07 pm Post subject: Re: Use GPLv2+ for a program to release, is best? |
|
|
| miroR wrote: | | Use GPLv2+ for a program to release, is best? |
| steveL wrote: | | Yes. 2+ allows it to be used with just about any Free project. |
| ryao wrote: | | The LGPLv2.1+ would be a better choice from the perspective of compatibility with other F/OSS licenses. I have met people who prefer to license their code under the Apache 2.0 license (which is theoretically as compatible as the LGPLv2.1+) because they assume that LGPL can degrade to the GPL under certain circumstances. |
If you just want it to be usable by anyone, you put it out under 2-clause BSD/MIT.
I'm presuming miroR is interested in Free software, and its objectives, based on what he's written on these forums, and the fact that he wasn't asking "what license?" but "what version of the GPL?"
In that arena, LGPL is for when your package simply would not be used otherwise, eg a standard system library.
If you care about User Freedom as defined by RMS (as I do) then (A)GPL3+ if possible, GPL2.1+ if you want wider compatibility.
LGPL if you must.
Although I do have my differences with RMS, I trust him an awful lot more than I trust googlemscbnc-nsa, which is mostly who the current set advocating anything-but-GPL are, nowadays. Not that it stops younglings thinking BSD is "fashionable", as you know. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ryao
Retired Dev
Joined: 27 Feb 2012
Posts: 132
|
| Posted: Mon May 04, 2015 1:22 pm Post subject: Re: Use GPLv2+ for a program to release, is best? |
|
|
| miroR wrote: | | I have to find time and read the details, well the whole of those licenses, LGPLv2.1+ and the Apache 2.0 license. It's all in /usr/portage/licenses... |
This might be helpful:
https://tldrlegal.com/license/gnu-lesser-general-public-license-v2.1-(lgpl-2.1)
https://tldrlegal.com/license/apache-license-2.0-(apache-2.0)
| steveL wrote: | | I'm presuming miroR is interested in Free software, and its objectives, based on what he's written on these forums, and the fact that he wasn't asking "what license?" but "what version of the GPL?" |
All of the licenses discussed are free software licenses according to the FSF. Lets give him the information he needs to make a well informed decision. Speaking of which, here a link to the FSF's commentary on various common license choices:
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html
That said, people who want the source code of derivatives of their work to be released have other options for doing that such as the LGPL and MPL:
https://tldrlegal.com/license/gnu-lesser-general-public-license-v2.1-(lgpl-2.1)
https://tldrlegal.com/license/mozilla-public-license-2.0-(mpl-2)
These licenses strike a compromise by only requiring changes to code/files under it to be released while leaving others' code/files alone. For what miroR wants, I suspect that either the LGPLv2.1+ or MPL 2.0 would be appropriate. They are both GPL compatible. The MPL 2.0 should be acceptable to those who avoid GPL/LGPL works. If he wants to make his code available to the people who think that the LGPL can degrade to the GPL and avoid both of them, the MPL 2.0 is a good option. If he does not want to make his code available to those people, the LGPLv2.1+ is a good option.
Lastly, the Apache 2.0 license is what people who avoid GPL/LGPL software typically prefer. However, it does not require the disclosure of source code and it is only compatible with the GPLv3+. My apologies for not mentioning this sooner. I had not realized in my cursory read that miroR wanted source code disclosure and I had forgotten about the Apache 2.0's incompatibility with the GPLv2. Another OSS developer reminded me about the incompatibility after I him to review my statements for accuracy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
miroR
l33t
Joined: 05 Mar 2008
Posts: 826
|
| Posted: Mon May 04, 2015 4:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I had time to only glance quickly through your kind replies, and the links.
I'm back at
Recover partly overwritten luks volume?
https://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-1004014.html#7724256
where see the EDIT note of today... Pls. you don't lose patience if I don't reply soon. Having lost two little videos today by mistyping made me go to Sleuthkit, and rereading what I learned of it previously and posted on that topic...
And that rereading made me go and make the post understandable again by recovering what was there and what Frostschutz decided to delete!? Why on Earth?
Pls. you don't lose patience. I really value your reply. Had I been doing all this fourty years ago, maybe I would have been even quicker than you to grasp things... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mv
Watchman
Joined: 20 Apr 2005
Posts: 6747
|
| Posted: Mon May 04, 2015 7:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| miroR wrote: | | The code can be as commercial as they want. So the BSD license in that sense deminishes freedom for the world |
In some sense yes, in some sense no. Remember, big players do not care about the license at all. Very small companies might in some sense be considered as a user. They might be ethical and not use software if the license does not allow them to. Do you really want to restrict these few small honest companies by forcing them not to use your software? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
miroR
l33t
Joined: 05 Mar 2008
Posts: 826
|
| Posted: Tue May 05, 2015 4:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mv wrote: | | miroR wrote: | | The code can be as commercial as they want. So the BSD license in that sense deminishes freedom for the world |
In some sense yes, in some sense no. Remember, big players do not care about the license at all. Very small companies might in some sense be considered as a user. They might be ethical and not use software if the license does not allow them to. Do you really want to restrict these few small honest companies by forcing them not to use your software? |
I really see your point...
Is there any way to preclude the obnoxious like M$ or Schmoogle, and allow the small ones to use the code?
A combination of both BSD/MIT and GLP2+ or so?
(This was easy to reply to with less than a minute work, the other reply, see my previous post, is hours of work, pls. note my kind request for patience for my next reply in the previous post.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
steveL
Watchman
Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 5153
Location: The Peanut Gallery
|
| Posted: Tue May 05, 2015 11:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mv wrote: | | Remember, big players do not care about the license at all. Very small companies might in some sense be considered as a user. They might be ethical and not use software if the license does not allow them to. Do you really want to restrict these few small honest companies by forcing them not to use your software? |
WTF? FUD from you mv?
Big companies absolutely care about the license; they have to comply with copyright laws, or their own IP claims effectively have no standing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mv
Watchman
Joined: 20 Apr 2005
Posts: 6747
|
| Posted: Tue May 05, 2015 7:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| steveL wrote: | | Big companies absolutely care about the license |
In case that the violation becomes visible. In case when they think that they can hide it, they often do not. For instance, in Germany we have a horrible TV mafia, and when I heard about their violation of GPL by using mplayer code in their proprietary set top boxes, I was not at all surprised. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
miroR
l33t
Joined: 05 Mar 2008
Posts: 826
|
| Posted: Tue May 05, 2015 9:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| steveL wrote: | | mv wrote: | | Remember, big players do not care about the license at all. Very small companies might in some sense be considered as a user. They might be ethical and not use software if the license does not allow them to. Do you really want to restrict these few small honest companies by forcing them not to use your software? |
WTF? FUD from you mv? |
steveL, don't talk like that, please! mv is great just like you are! You are both contributing, and doing good things for FOSS.
| steveL wrote: | | Big companies absolutely care about the license; they have to comply with copyright laws, or their own IP claims effectively have no standing. |
You seem to have not even glanced at:
https://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-1016338.html#7742436
where you got the freaking very big company having stolen from spender, having thought they could use grsecurity in the freaking Skype when they bought it, and that no one would know, which it absolutely consistent with what mv replied to you.
Let's pls. go back. Any chance:
| miroR wrote: | | A combination of both BSD/MIT and GLP2+ or so? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mv
Watchman
Joined: 20 Apr 2005
Posts: 6747
|
| Posted: Wed May 06, 2015 7:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| miroR wrote: | | Is there any way to preclude the obnoxious like M$ or Schmoogle, and allow the small ones to use the code? |
I did not have in mind google with "big playeres" (although google certainly is a big player - I was just not thinking about this, when I used the term; I had certain other companies/consortia in mind like the one mentioned before). This is probably also why probably also SteveL did get confused about my argument.
Anyway, the answer to your question is definitiely "no": If I could exclude some companies, I would definitely exclude companies which produce weapons - indepednent of whether large or small - because doing this is more unethical than anything else a company can do. But, as mentioned, Debian fundamentalists consider such licenses as unfree, and so in practice you will just hinder distribution of your software to many people.
For this reason, I also still license anything of my software as GPL whenever some GPL software is "strictly" needed to build it. If you recall Jörg Schilling's case: This is BSD software, but one of its libraries requires GNU make (or autotools or something similar) to build, and this was the official reason for Debian fundamentalists to kick his software out... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
miroR
l33t
Joined: 05 Mar 2008
Posts: 826
|
| Posted: Wed May 06, 2015 5:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mv wrote: | | miroR wrote: | | Is there any way to preclude the obnoxious like M$ or Schmoogle, and allow the small ones to use the code? |
I did not have in mind google with "big playeres" (although google certainly is a big player - I was just not thinking about this, when I used the term; I had certain other companies/consortia in mind like the one mentioned before). This is probably also why probably also SteveL did get confused about my argument. |
Well, I was thinking about the Schmoog. Apart from removing from public view, as I wrote previously, all my work of some 5 ys posting on Youtube, 500+ videos, 600,000 admitted views (more censored out from their strange kind of counting [*]), let me post that link:
Really? The Surveillance Engine Terminated All My Videos
http://forums.debian.net/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=113059
| mv wrote: | | Anyway, the answer to your question is definitiely "no": If I could exclude some companies, I would definitely exclude companies which produce weapons - indepednent of whether large or small - because doing this is more unethical than anything else a company can do. But, as mentioned, Debian fundamentalists consider such licenses as unfree, and so in practice you will just hinder distribution of your software to many people. |
But surely warmongers I would preclude out first, still, even before the Schmoog.
| mv wrote: | | For this reason, I also still license anything of my software as GPL whenever some GPL software is "strictly" needed to build it. If you recall Jörg Schilling's case: This is BSD software, but one of its libraries requires GNU make (or autotools or something similar) to build, and this was the official reason for Debian fundamentalists to kick his software out... |
I do recall, I mentioned him in my previous post, above in this very topic, a fine German like you.
Let me requote both of us for clarity.
| mv wrote: | | miroR wrote: | | Is there any way to preclude the obnoxious like M$ or Schmoogle, and allow the small ones to use the code? |
Anyway, the answer to your question is definitiely "no" |
I thought so. But I think I'll go with the GPL2+ or so... Not certain...
Oh, it's nothing in comparison to your programming or steveL's programming anyway... It's my huge effort, but it's so flawed, that I feel a little awkward discussing it with real programmers like you and him and ryao. (Still, I keep dreaming...)
...
---
[*] Yes! They often lie when they tell the number of views... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
miroR
l33t
Joined: 05 Mar 2008
Posts: 826
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 03, 2015 6:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
In the end, I decided for BSD license.
Remembered how a friend of mine couldn't use some programs and modify them, because he needed those for his firm.
And this way, I am GPL compliant, and I hope I my name won't be removed from this work of mine, or its derivatives, or rewrites:
https://github.com/miroR/flowstamp/blob/master/LICENSE
That is the BSD license as I found it in, look up your Gentoo install, and cat the file in your termianl, or in your editor of choice:
| Code: | /usr/portage/licenses/Clear-BSD
|
Dead tired on arrival.
...
God, I really like Gentoo...  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
miroR
l33t
Joined: 05 Mar 2008
Posts: 826
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 07, 2015 12:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
A related question.
I have a stupid license for uncenz.
I would also like to change it to BSD license like the Flowstamp. Can I just switch to BSD license in the next version (as surely I can't mess wich what I previously choose; took some research to get to figure out it's GPL-INcompatible)? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
arnvidr
l33t
Joined: 19 Aug 2004
Posts: 629
Location: Oslo, Norway
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 07, 2015 6:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
If you wrote all the code, you can relicense it as you please.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
miroR
l33t
Joined: 05 Mar 2008
Posts: 826
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 07, 2015 9:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| arnvidr wrote: | | If you wrote all the code, you can relicense it as you please. |
Thanx.
Hey, I don't get the saying in your sig (but OK, I'm a little dum on undestanding jokes...) I'll be thinking about it now, every so often, till I get it, if ever. No I don't get it... You're puzzling me...
But I have work to do... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
miroR
l33t
Joined: 05 Mar 2008
Posts: 826
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 22, 2015 8:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| arnvidr wrote: | | If you wrote all the code, you can relicense it as you please. |
I thought again about this.
I think now: yes I do have the right to relicense my own work, but only for future versions! But what it out is under that license, and that cannot be changed.
Regards! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
Gentoo Chat
