On Fri, Nov 16, 2007 at 04:26:05PM +0000, Tuomo Valkonen wrote: > On 2007-11-16, Stuart Henderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The version in tree is before the license change; the additional > > restrictions on the newer code are a problem. > > They are not a problem for reasonable distributors that care to pay > a bit of respect towards the author's time and work. Of course, reason, > literacy, and respect towards authors and persoanl choice are something > seldom seen among the FOSS herd, rather replacing them with blind ideology > and monocultures. It is a popular myth that you have to provide the new > release within 28 days, and although I encourage that, it is not true > and what the license says. Alternatively, you must after those 28 days > prominently notify the user installing the software that the release > is likely to be antiquated, not representative of the project's present > state, and the author will not provide support for it. Not much asked, > in my opinion. You could even base this notification on a dead-man > switch, which would be quite nice even generally, considering package > maintainers often going MIA.
Package is no longer maintained due to your license change. I fail to see the relevance of trying to retroactively impose its new terms. > > -- > Tuomo >
