Lawrence Rosen dixit: >This has been proposed before. What is different now is that the Public >Software Fund is going to stand behind this process, and defend the >project's editor against lawsuits by any licensors who object to this >relicense. > >I’m not convinced that “don’t need to worry” and the “Public Software >Fund” are sufficient reasons to violate the “no relicensing” rule of >law.
The wording of most of the licences is also pretty clear: *these* terms (their wording) is to be copied, not any equivalent one. Against, //mirabilos -- I believe no one can invent an algorithm. One just happens to hit upon it when God enlightens him. Or only God invents algorithms, we merely copy them. If you don't believe in God, just consider God as Nature if you won't deny existence. -- Coywolf Qi Hunt _______________________________________________ The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not necessarily those of the Open Source Initiative. Official statements by the Open Source Initiative will be sent from an opensource.org email address. License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@lists.opensource.org http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
