Lars Gullik Bj�nnes wrote: >>> Well... when we changed to GPL with ++, did we contact these people >>> then? >>> >>> IMHO we should just change the whole thing back to GPL proper without >>> asking anyone. >>> >>> IMHO we never really changed, but clearified how we interpreted the >>> GPL. >> > | And which court exactly do you have in mind? "Oh, it's OK, Lars Gullik > | says that this is what he meant by the licence, and everybody who > | contributed code in the interim should understand this too." Urgggg! > > The code was originally GPL, then we added a clause. Did we then ask > all known authors? > > I cannot remember that we did, and we didn't do this because the > de-facto use of LyX would allow linking with xforms. So because of > some linux distributions we added the clarifying clause. But did we > really change the license? I don't think so. > > So IMHO we can just remove the clause since it is now moot.
Unfortunately, neither of us are lawyers, so our humble opinion is moot ;-) Does the FSF provide advice on this sort of mess? Meanwhile, just add your name to blanket-permissions.txt (www-user tree). -- Angus
