Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
>
>Ben Tilly wrote:
>
> > >I believe that is correct as well.
> >
> > Is subset really the word? Should I choose to accept and redistribute
> > using the AL, I should be able to distribute under any terms I choose
>that
> > are consistent with the distribution requirements
> Bradley M . Kuhn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >I don't think this is completely out the question, either. I was actually
> >planning on writing an RFC that proposes that all contributions to the core
> >be copyright assigned to Larry.
Nick Ing-Simmons wrote:
> Well if that becomes a require
Ben Tilly wrote:
> >I believe that is correct as well.
>
> Is subset really the word? Should I choose to accept and redistribute
> using the AL, I should be able to distribute under any terms I choose that
> are consistent with the distribution requirements of the AL. This may
> include adding
Bradley M . Kuhn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>I don't think this is completely out the question, either. I was actually
>planning on writing an RFC that proposes that all contributions to the core
>be copyright assigned to Larry.
Well if that becomes a requirement I will have to stop contribu
Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
>
>Russ Allbery wrote:
> > Chris Nandor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > The Package must ALWAYS be distributed under the same licensing terms
>as
> > > the original. Unless it is public domain or you are the copyright
> > > holder, you cannot change the licensing ter
Russ Allbery wrote:
> Chris Nandor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > The Package must ALWAYS be distributed under the same licensing terms as
> > the original. Unless it is public domain or you are the copyright
> > holder, you cannot change the licensing terms.
>
> Not true, as far as I know.
