Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 00:25:22 +0200 (CEST) From: Wojciech Puchar <wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> To: Polytropon <freebsd@edvax.de> Cc: FreeBSD Questions <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>, Antonio Olivares <olivares14031@gmail.com> Subject: Re: Why Clang Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1206210023450.1403@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> In-Reply-To: <20120621001809.da9ce415.freebsd@edvax.de> References: <4FCF9333.70201@speakeasy.org> <402199FE-380B-41B6-866B-7D5D66C457D5@lpthe.jussieu.fr> <CAH3a3KWKNF5Bt-8=KgtbMh=rV6GfUO7OaeE6-SutxkcRe8cG3Q@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1206191953280.8234@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> <20120619205225.21d6709f.freebsd@edvax.de> <20f61898ce668c96f8882981cf8e24f6@remailer.privacy.at> <4FE1AD27.8000704@gmail.com> <CAH3a3KWHYC%2BpbkdQWF4Pfqv=W0Ldzo8q4T8Ta5wgsryocxNFuA@mail.gmail.com> <1340192731894-5720039.post@n5.nabble.com> <4FE1BD0E.5060300@pukruppa.de> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1206201416540.24484@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> <CA%2B0MdpOftiWE%2B1Gqn5USxu87RPB_7WAGTXnOGU0dp99CMXMYTw@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1206201644190.1476@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> <CAJ5UdcOwD-gpw548fkHnuzUp3R%2BwTOPvna5Z8J079T4VVKGB=A@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1206202204520.3174@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> <20120620224030.1a0dc3b4.freebsd@edvax.de> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1206202353080.1403@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> <20120621001809.da9ce415.freebsd@edvax.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> You're being paid to write a program for a customer. You
i don't talk that case, but if i am hired to write some part of program as
an employer in software company.
>> So - if authors of any project, no matter how numerous, will all
>> without exception agree that they want to get rid of GPL, then - they
>> always can turn it to BSD
>> licenced ? am i right?
>
> A general consensus of the issuers of the license ("continuous
> licensing") could maybe do that, I assume. Still there would
> be the possibility to create a fork (common means in open source
> when something needs to be changed that doesn't go well with
> "mainstream"), and that fork could keep the old license. Now
> there are two independent projects.
that is fine.
>
> BUT - as everyone is free to obtain, modify and re-issue GPL
> source code, I'm not sure such a consensus could be reached.
by creating a BSD licenced fork - constructed from parts written by all
developers that - as you said - have personal right to their code.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?alpine.BSF.2.00.1206210023450.1403>