On Wed, 07 Dec 2005 20:34:43 -0500 Paul Davis <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > there is more going on there than almost nobody on this list except for > the LS authors and myself is aware of. it would be wise for everyone to > not judge this admittedly very unpleasant change in the license without > being aware of the reasons why it occured. unfortunately, it is not > possible to explain any more. There's no way other to judge this than on the data we have. As i have said before i'm not really sure it's even legal to change the license to from GPL to something different, as there might have been many contributions by other people during the GPL time. As a project maintainer of a GPL project, it would be very wrong to accept patches while the project was GPL and then change the license without explicit agreement by _all_ other contributors. Actually not only wrong, but illegal. I have spoken out this concern earlier, but there has never been a conclusive answer. Actually i don't think there was ever _any_ answer. So from my point of view LS is dead until someone actually speaks up. This "Ah it's all ok, but we can't tell you why" doesn't sound convincing at all. Sorry. Have all contributors been asked whether they agree to the license change? Or did they sign off all copyrights to the LS authors? Browsing through the ML archives it doesn't look like either to me. Regards, Flo -- Palimm Palimm! http://tapas.affenbande.org
