On Thu, Jul 21, 2022 at 7:29 PM Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
<avarab@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> It's great that the primary author of the library wants to release it
> under a compatible license.
>
> But I feel like I'm missing something here, don't we still need the
> other contributors to that code to sign off on such a license change,
> and for us to be comfortable with integrating such code?
As far as I see their commits, they don't use sign-off in any of their commits.
I know what you want to mean but the license text uses "The CRoaring
authors" rather than "Daniel Lemire". Below is the text -
/*
* MIT License
*
* Copyright 2016-2022 The CRoaring authors
*
* Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any
* person obtaining a copy of this software and associated
...
*/
So, isn't it enough for us?
> My understanding (again, not a lawyer and all that) is that such
> transitions happen one of a few ways:
>
> A. One entity had been assigned copyright in the first place, and can
> re-license the work. E.g. the FSF requiring copyright assignments
> for anything non-trivial.
>
> B. The license itself has an "upgrade" clause (e.g. GPLv2 "or later"
> projects being GPLv3 compatible).
>
> C. All copyright holders (or near enough) agree to
> relicense. E.g. OpenStreetMap went through this process at some
> point.
I got your point here. I am sure that "All copyright holders" have no
problem with this relicensing.
Daniel already said in his comment[1] that they do not have any problem with it.
[1] https://groups.google.com/g/roaring-bitmaps/c/0d7KoA79k3A/m/t8e09-wPAgAJ
Thanks :)
