[License-review] For Approval: Convertible Free Software License, Version 1.3 (C-FSL v1.3)
estellnb at elstel.org
Mon Jan 14 10:06:49 UTC 2019
You seem to be picky about the wording in my last email. Nonetheless I
can confirm you that the C-FSL license works as intended for the
original authors. They are safe to use the patches of other people also
and especially if they want to relicense their work later on. This is
done by implicit consent of each contributor.
On 11.01.19 22:33, Rob Landley wrote:
> On 1/11/19 7:19 AM, Elmar Stellnberger wrote:> On 09.01.19 02:29, Rob Landley wrote:
>>> Or do you literally just mean "we're special, we get extra rights nobody else
>>> gets, in perpetuity" and you want to call that open source?
>> Well if someone publishes code under C-FSL he needs to be a (/one of the)
>> copyright holder(/s) in order to have the right to re-license under C-FSL.
> Every contributor is a copyright holder. That's how copyright works.
The original authors are effective copyright holder of the whole work
which means that they can relicense. Of course everyone has a copyright
on his own contribution but by using C-FSL contributors give the right
to relicense to the original authors.
>> If so then he is perfectly fine to do so. In this case it is likely that the elder
>> authors could publish under C-FSL without crypto support and those who have
>> added crypto support as well because they have contributed a major part of the
>> code (assumed that the previous product was already C-FSL or open source).
> Any license without a termination clause means you can continue to publish under
> the old license, and create new derived works if you used to be able to. Forks
> don't affect the original.
What I mean here by publishing another time under C-FSL is appointing
their own set of original authors.
More information about the License-review