* Bradley M. Kuhn: > David Lamparter wrote: >> The respective original authors have expressed and reaffirmed their wishes >> for the code to remain under a permissive license. . .. we have decided to >> try and honour the original author's requests. > > That's an odd request, since it contradicts the terms of the license > they offered the code under originally. In fact, it's quite typical for > projects to take non-copylefted code and bring it into a copylefted project > and make copylefted changes thereafter.
It is not always clear whether the changes are subject to the surrounding project's license or the original (non-copyleft) license. > Specifically, the original author's request, expressed through their > choice of a non-copyleft license, was that downstream should have > permission to relicense under nearly any sort of downstream > licenses, including proprietary ones, so it seems to me that the > authors are being a bit unfair to your copyleft project by making > demands of you that they aren't (presumably) making of proprietary > combiners of the code (i.e., if they didn't want the proprietary > combiners to relicense under licenses other than theirs, they'd have > used copyleft in the first place themselves). The behavior becomes much more reasonable if you assume that a proprietary variant of the code exists somewhere, and the authors hope to merge back contributions into it, under the original non-copyleft license.
