On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 1:56 AM, thgntlmnfrmtrlfmdr <
thgntlmnfrmtrlf...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > The ability to license
>
> something as non-open in the future doesn't change the fact that what is
> currently released is open.
>
>
> Right, but it *does* make it not copyleft. So is that really what i
On Wed, 15 Jun 2016, thgntlmnfrmtrlfmdr wrote:
> The thing is I don't see why [a custodian] would need or want the
> right to relicense things [...]
Classic example of a relicence from GPL to MIT/X11 was Mesa3D to
enable tight integration with the X.org codebase. This means we all
now have OpenGL
> The ability to license
> something as non-open in the future doesn't change the fact that what
> is
> currently released is open.
Right, but it does make it not copyleft. So is that really what it's
doing or am I reading it wrong? Not that permissive is bad, I just want
to know. Because it seems
On 06/14/2016 11:42 PM, thgntlmnfrmtrlfmdr wrote:
> Hi guys, let's talk about snaps. There seems to be a problem with the
> snapd contributor's license
> agreement:
> https://assets.ubuntu.com/v1/ff2478d1-Canonical-HA-CLA-ANY-I_v1.2.pdf
>
> "2.3 Outbound License
> Based on the grant of rights in
Hi guys, let's talk about snaps. There seems to be a problem with the
snapd contributor's license agreement: https://assets.ubuntu.com/v1/ff2
478d1-Canonical-HA-CLA-ANY-I_v1.2.pdf
"2.3 Outbound License
Based on the grant of rights in Sections 2.1 and 2.2, if We
include Your Contribution in a Mater
