[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Savannah-register-public] [task #12728] Submission of Whonix

From: Karl Berry
Subject: [Savannah-register-public] [task #12728] Submission of Whonix
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2013 23:00:42 +0000
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:23.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/23.0 SeaMonkey/2.20

Follow-up Comment #15, task #12728 (project administration):

The rules you state are effectively adding conditions to the license, which is
not allowed.  Particular VC processes are irrelevant.  The code has to be
licensed under GPLv3+, period.  Not "GPLv3+ and these extra things if you want
to get a patch installed".

If you clearly state them as requests or conventions for contribution to the
package, that is fine, since it does not alter the license.  (I suspect it
would achieve the same effect.)  They can even be conditions for contribution,
since after all you are under no obligation to accept patches.  What they
can't be is part of the licensing of the package on top of the GPL.  Those
clauses are asking people to give up fundamental rights, and that can't be
part of the license.

The proxy clause in the GPL is about something else entirely, as far as I
know.  If you want to state that you are the proxy for the program for
deciding on future versions of the GPL, that is fine, but irrelevant.  You've
already put it under GPLv3 *or later*, so anyone can release it under any GPL
3, 4, ...

The Linux people could relicense the kernel if they wanted to.  It would be a
lot of work, but it's not impossible.  They don't want to.



Reply to this item at:


  Message sent via/by Savannah

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]