Geir Magnusson Jr. <geirm <at> apache.org> writes: > > Is the problem you see due to a misunderstanding? > > The word is "sublicense", not "relicense"... >
Aha! As Geir was polite to try to explain to me what makes sublicensing different from relicensing, let me have another try, this time with an even simpler setup. Let's say I am the sole, founding member of the hypothetical Non-native-speakers Non-lawyers Union Of Fans Of The MIT Software License. Being a fundamentally freedom loving organisation, in spirit very, very similar to the ASF itself, the NNUOFOTMITSL only distributes software under the MIT license, and refuses to distribute software under longer software licenses, citing hypothetical scientific research that shows that most people do not understand software licenses anyway as soon as they have more than 4 clauses. [1] Alas, the NNUOFOTMITSL has by chance found out that the Apache Software Foundation is an organisation that has produced a huge amount of Works of extraordinary quality. Like many other big organisations, the NNUOFOTMITSL would like to be able to to satisfy the needs of their customers/user/members without confusing them by having a wild mix of long licenses that cover different bits and pieces of those works. And the NNUOFOTMITSL would like to be able to offer ASF's code in their MIT licensed works. Does adding a MIT licensed creative haiku on software licensing into each source file of an ASF work allow the NNUOFOTMITSL to redistribute the thereby created Derived Work (which includes ASFs code) as a whole under the MIT license, or under the MIT/ASL2 dual license [2]? cheers, dalibor topic [1] I am sure that would be a fun field for psychology research. [2] To satisfy 4.a. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
