On Vi, 27 ian 12, 23:05:13, Charles Plessy wrote: > > I do not see the need for the following complications: > > 1) giving the permission to relicense instead of relicensing directly.
Agree > 2) complex license semantics where one can write: license is “MIT or GPL-2+”. > > I have not seen anywhere else asymetric uses of “and” and “or” depending on > who is the donor and who is the receiver. For instance, “GPL-2” is always > “or (at your option) any later…”. Disagree. As far as I understood the choice of dual licensing for the entire site is intentional. For this to work *all* contributors have to agree to *both* MIT/Expat and GPL-2+. Otherwise, because of the copyleft nature of the GPL, the site will be GPL *only* even if only a small part is not dual licensed. > Why not simply: > > ----------------------8<----------------------8<---------------------- > The material that I have provided to the Debian website is hereby > licensed under the terms of the MIT (Expat) License or, at your option, > of the GNU General Public License; either version 2 of the License, or > (at your option) any later version. > ----------------------8<----------------------8<---------------------- - the first "or" needs to be "and" - the "(at your option)" does not fit very well here, since we are asking contributors to relicense, not receivers to use whatever later version they want Here's my take: --------------8<----------------8<-----------------8<------------------ All contributions that I have provided to the Debian website (including but not limited to original writings, translations, designs, or scripts) are hereby licensed under the terms of both the MIT (Expat) License and of the GNU General Public License version 2 of the License or any later. --------------8<----------------8<-----------------8<------------------ Kind regards, Andrei -- Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers: http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
