On Mon, 23 Sep 2002, Joerg Schilling wrote: >>>Having thought about it some more, I think we're both correct. >>>cdrdao cannot be published under the GPL, because then linking it >>>to libedc would violate the license. It would however be possible >>>to put a license on it that has everything the GPL has with the >>>special exception that the author of cdrdao allows you to link it >>>with libedc, even if the libedc license does not give you the >>>rights specified in the GPL. Ofcourse then cdrdao would no longer >>>be published under the GPL, but it (that is cdrdao without libedc) >>>would still be under a GPL-compatible license. > >>In order to do that, would require every person who has >>contributed source code to cdrdao to agree to the change of >>license, or to agree to assign all copyrighted code they've >>contributed to the author. > >Wrong as I already did explain in a former mail. > >AFAIK, I am the only person who did major contributions and I do allow >this kind of usage. Authors who did minor contributions need not be asked.
That is your own personal opinion on the matter. If there was an author whom has contributed code and had a decenting opinion, and did not agree to the license change, then they could try to sue. Only then, would some court of law somewhere decide. Also, it is entirely possible that a court of law in one country might decide totally different from a court of law in another. Possibly even in different states or provinces. It really doesn't matter though does it because nobody is suing anyone, and the issue is being resolved in a proper open source friendly manner which everybody will benefit from. In the end, it really doesn't matter who is right and wrong. It matters that the problem is solved, and it is. -- Mike A. Harris -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
