Angus Leeming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Kayvan A. Sylvan wrote: > > > On Tue, Feb 22, 2005 at 08:52:31PM -0500, John Weiss wrote:
Hi John! How's your job going? > >> Any contributions I made to LyX (early reLyX, documentation) should > >> therefore be considered as originally under the Artistic License. > >> > >> Make of that what you will. > > > > I think that you're correct. The purpose of this request for permission to > change the licence was twofold: > > 1. To make it clear legally what licence code contributed to LyX was > licenced under. > 2. To make the licence more restrictive than the published "GPL + XForms > exception". > > So I'll add a section to blanket-permissions.txt > > The following people hereby grant permission to licence their > contributions to LyX under the Artistic Licence > http://www.opensource.org/licenses/artistic-license.php I'm afraid that this will not be practical. It's ok to have separate file with different licences, but mixing will be difficult. First there's the documentation clause: 3. You may otherwise modify your copy of this Package in any way, provided that you insert a prominent notice in each changed file stating how and when you changed that file, and provided that you do at least ONE of the following: a) place your modifications in the Public Domain or otherwise make them Freely Available, ... Since in LyX we don't document changes per file but in separate Changelogs, this will only be practical for a few isolated files under the Artistic Licence. The other problem would be how to interpret the definition of this licence: * What's the 'package' of a contribution to LyX? * What is the 'standard version'? Is the usual development of LyX working on the standard version or does it constitute a derived version? So I'd stick with the GPL in large and only put single files under another licence. If a copyright holder insists that his/her changes to an existing GPL'd file shall fall under a different licence, they have to be convinced that this is not possible (I'm not sure if GPL would alow this!) Conclusion: If anyone wants to have their contribution under a different licence, they have to provide this contribution in an isolated file. For John's contributions it would be possible to put reLyX and the docs under the Artistic licence, but then all the other contributers would have to agree :-( In doubt I'd stick with the licence which first appeard in file -- if someone changes the file later, they have to accept the existing licence. Ciao /Andreas BTW, John: The Artistic preamble says "... such that the Copyright Holder maintains some semblance of artistic control over the development of the package ..." In a fast developing project as LyX the best way to maintain this control would be to keep contributing and to join the discussions, no? ;-)
