Angus Leeming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
>>>> 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.
>
| Unfortunately, neither of us are lawyers, so our humble opinion is moot ;-)
I don't think we have to be.
| Does the FSF provide advice on this sort of mess?
>
| Meanwhile, just add your name to blanket-permissions.txt (www-user tree).
Sure, just add it.
But IMHO that file is more for future contributions than for past
ones.
Read Copying and see that we do not really change the GPL, besides it
is only for XForms, which it is not needed for anymore.
Just get rid of the "special exception"
--
Lgb
