| 1 |
>>>>> On Sun, 25 Nov 2012, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 9:30 AM, Roy Bamford <neddyseagoon@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
>> From the point of view of the licencor, the licence is just as |
| 5 |
>> important as the code, so there are no trivial licence issues. |
| 6 |
>> As a trustee, I am unhappy with losing the traceability at all. |
| 7 |
>> Other trustees may have different opinions. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
But there _are_ trivial cases (e.g., most of the init script issues, |
| 10 |
bug 425702) where a simple ChangeLog entry would be enough for |
| 11 |
traceability. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
> Not this one. License issues can vary in severity, and there may be |
| 14 |
> nuances that an outsider might not appreciate. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
> I think it is best to at least ping the maintainer before switching a |
| 17 |
> license. If anybody spots a license issue that they believe to be |
| 18 |
> serious and they don't get a timely response from the maintainer, they |
| 19 |
> should escalate it. I'd go a step further and request CCing the |
| 20 |
> trustees from the start on any issue that involves contact from the |
| 21 |
> copyright holder in any form. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
This can certainly be done. Be prepared for some bug spam, though. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Ulrich |
Archives