On Fri, Jan 29, 1999 at 11:59:34AM +0100, Asger K. Alstrup Nielsen wrote:
> > First, Debian (if I understand correctly) hasn't usually accepted the
> > "legal nullification" theory. Currently being a Debian user and not a
> > developer, I'm not really qualified to answer as to how they'll accept
> > it in this case.
>
> In this case, that's just too bad.
...and completely bass-ackwards, dain-bramaged nonsense.
> It's difficult for us to change the license, because that requires
> us to contact all contributors over the last four years, and get their
> consent.
We should *really* go through the CREDITS file, contact all therein,
and get them to consent to giving the LyX Team official permission to
make changes to copyright as wee deem necessary, as long as such
changes are not for commercial gain. Rich, could you ponder a
paragraph stating something like that? We could then also put
soemthing on the web page/in the source distribution asking long-lost
contributors to get in touch with us.
Really, this is an annoying loose end that will only grow worse. In
practice, anyone who contributes a patch to LyX has "veto power" on
license, copyright, and other changes only so long as they're
semi-active members of the develpment team. It is assumed that anyone
who abandons their corner of the code "bequeaths" it to the team. In
principle, certain GPL-fundamentalist nutcases who shall remain
nameless [Debian] go stomping around claiming we put LyX under a
license that makes it illegal for anyone to ever run LyX and other
such horseshit. To shut them up, I'd like to stuff a sock down their
throats. However, others on the team would prefer not to resort to
violence. ;) Performing the admittedly long and tedious task is our
only alternative.
We need to do it at some point. Why not now, during the shakedown/bug
reporting period of 1.0?
--
John Weiss
