Kay Hayen <kayha...@gmx.de> writes: > And it should address what MJ said, because that way, new code is > under "ASF2.0" for everybody pretty automatic.
Is that your intent? If so, I don't know why the license is not ASF 2.0 from the start. On the other hand, if you want everyone to receive the work under GPL 3.0 but *not* have the freedom to re-license, then the above intent seems contradictory. > That way, my only "unfairness" is to not put my work under GPLv3, a > right that I offer everybody else too though. I am quite confused by this, probably due to the apparent contradiction above. -- \ “Some people, when confronted with a problem, think ‘I know, | `\ I'll use regular expressions’. Now they have two problems.” | _o__) —Jamie Zawinski, in alt.religion.emacs | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87ipkpaonm....@benfinney.id.au
