On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 02:03:45PM +0100, Steffen Nurpmeso wrote: > As far as i understand it, using the Apache license gives more > protection to end users than the current license does, at least if > patents get involved. > > .. > |> Apparently lawyers are being paid to help them push this through. Is > |> that being paid for by donations people gave after Heartbleed? Is > |> this why people donated? > > The license is even better for end-users as the current license?
The specific content and any perceived merits of the various license here are all irrelevant. It's the "if we don't hear anything back we assume we have your consent" part that's simply not legal, period. Not anywhere that has a concept of copyright. If they want to change the license, fine. Contributors who agree with the new license will give their consent. For those who do not explicitly give their consent, any contributed code needs to be replaced with code under the new license, in some manner consistent with fairly straightforward copyright law. The legalities are not at all complicated. Performing a full license audit of their tree is likely to be time consuming (just ask the people who did just that on the OpenBSD source and ports trees at least once), but unless they get everyone explicitly on board with the new license they will need to go through one. -- Peter N. M. Hansteen, member of the first RFC 1149 implementation team http://bsdly.blogspot.com/ http://www.bsdly.net/ http://www.nuug.no/ "Remember to set the evil bit on all malicious network traffic" delilah spamd[29949]: 85.152.224.147: disconnected after 42673 seconds.
