8 Dec
2005
8 Dec
'05
7:25 a.m.
On Wed, 07 Dec 2005 20:34:43 -0500
Paul Davis <paul(a)linuxaudiosystems.com> wrote:
there is more going on there than almost nobody on
this list except for
the LS authors and myself is aware of. it would be wise for everyone to
not judge this admittedly very unpleasant change in the license without
being aware of the reasons why it occured. unfortunately, it is not
possible to explain any more.
There's no way other to judge this than on the data we have. As i have
said before i'm not really sure it's even legal to change the license to
from GPL to something different, as there might have been many
contributions by other people during the GPL time. As a project
maintainer of a GPL project, it would be very wrong to accept patches
while the project was GPL and then change the license without explicit
agreement by _all_ other contributors. Actually not only wrong, but
illegal.
I have spoken out this concern earlier, but there has never been a
conclusive answer. Actually i don't think there was ever _any_ answer.
So from my point of view LS is dead until someone actually speaks up.
This "Ah it's all ok, but we can't tell you why" doesn't sound
convincing at all. Sorry.
Have all contributors been asked whether they agree to the license
change? Or did they sign off all copyrights to the LS authors? Browsing
through the ML archives it doesn't look like either to me.
Regards,
Flo
--
Palimm Palimm!
http://tapas.affenbande.org