On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 12:59:32 + Wols Lists wrote:
[...]
> On 15/01/12 20:07, Francesco Poli wrote:
[...]
> > As it should already be clear from my previous comments, I think
> > that requiring blanket re-licensing permission from contributors as
> > a prerequisite for accepting contributions t
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 15/01/12 20:07, Francesco Poli wrote:
>> Please note that Andrei found it “a bit harsh” [1] (well, it was
>> about
>>> copyright reassignment, since we will only ask for a
>>> relicensing permission, maybe his remark won't stand) if we
>>> remove co
Hello,
I haven't followed thoroughly the thread, but there are many legal
issues at stake with such decisions, for instance in some countries such
as France, it is legally not possible to grant this kind of permission
for future works; thus this agreement below would be legally void:
Le dimanche
Le Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 02:45:20PM -0400, David Prévot a écrit :
>
> Since the “web team” is not a clearly defined entity, I propose, for
> legal purpose, that the license choice stays ours but we mandate the
> Debian project leader to publicly announce it once we have decided the
> accurate licen
On Sun, 15 Jan 2012 14:45:20 -0400 David Prévot wrote:
> Le 09/01/2012 17:39, Francesco Poli a écrit :
[...]
> Instead of continuing our discussion based on impressions, we just
> issued a quick poll [P.-S.]: it confirms that not everyone will agree
> with a copyright reassignment, but almost all
Le 09/01/2012 17:39, Francesco Poli a écrit :
> On Sun, 8 Jan 2012 23:17:02 +0100 Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
>> On Sun, Jan 08, 2012 at 10:40:35PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
>>> I think that this is exactly what people opposing to copyright
>>> assignment want to avoid: giving permission to re-lic
6 matches
Mail list logo
