1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
2 |
Hash: SHA1 |
3 |
|
4 |
Hiya guys, |
5 |
|
6 |
One of the packages I maintain (nipper) has recently undergone a change |
7 |
of license, from being GPLed to a new license that whilst mostly being |
8 |
commercial features a non-commercial/personal use element. |
9 |
|
10 |
Due to the new license (and the no redistribution of any kind bits) the |
11 |
package will need mirror/fetch restrictions, which is fine. My concern |
12 |
is with the copyright clause which states: |
13 |
|
14 |
"Any patches or updates that the Licensee may develop for NIPPER must be |
15 |
immediately submitted to the Licensor. In addition, the Licensee will |
16 |
forthwith transfer without charge all current and future rights |
17 |
including copyrights and other intellectual property rights relating to |
18 |
such updates to the Licensor." |
19 |
|
20 |
I'm wondering how this might affect any in-tree patching, because whilst |
21 |
I'm aware of this clause and happy to send any patches upstream and/or |
22 |
not patch at all, I can't say the same for every Gentoo dev that might |
23 |
want to fix a problem. |
24 |
|
25 |
I know the upstream author personally, and he's providing the |
26 |
source-code primarily for Gentoo users (we can always use the existing |
27 |
binary RPMs if patching is an issue), but I thought I should ask what |
28 |
the best course of action would be here? |
29 |
|
30 |
Thanks, |
31 |
|
32 |
Mike 5:) |
33 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
34 |
Version: GnuPG v2.0.11 (GNU/Linux) |
35 |
|
36 |
iEYEARECAAYFAko1XWYACgkQu7rWomwgFXpWYACfaJO7c77PVD4kuEsPrLOG7Qsx |
37 |
Sw0An1JswTwSB0Asa2BEUQZyS4OBGbeE |
38 |
=rinb |
39 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |