Angus Leeming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
>
>> Angus Leeming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> | tex2lyx pulls in a few files in the src/ directory together with the
>> | src/support library. I reckon that changing the license of tex2lyx to
>> | the GPL will require the agreement of these people:
And this will then be a strange kind of dual license for those files?
>>
>> Well... when we changed to GPL with ++, did we contact these people
>> then?
>>
>> IMHO we should just change the whole thing back to GPL proper without
>> asking anyone.
>>
>> IMHO we never really changed, but clearified how we interpreted the
>> GPL.
>
| And which court exactly do you have in mind? "Oh, it's OK, Lars Gullik
| says that this is what he meant by the licence, and everybody who
| contributed code in the interim should understand this too." Urgggg!
The code was originally GPL, then we added a clause. Did we then ask
all known authors?
I cannot remember that we did, and we didn't do this because the
de-facto use of LyX would allow linking with xforms. So because of
some linux distributions we added the clarifying clause. But did we
really change the license? I don't think so.
So IMHO we can just remove the clause since it is now moot.
| More realistically, we'd need the say-so of only 19 people (of whom 6 have
| given their go-ahead already) to release tex2lyx under a cast iron and
| copper-bottomed GPL licence, so let's just do it.
My take: We don't want different licenses in LyX.
We shouldn't focus on tex2lyx.
Besides tex2lyx does not link with qt or xforms so the whole exercise
is a bit moot isn't it?
--
Lgb
