Re: Updated Licence Draft
Ingo Klöcker <[email protected]> Wed, 28 Nov 2007 00:48:34 +0100
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.kde.licensing |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Friday 23 November 2007, Jonathan Riddell wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 23, 2007 at 10:22:01AM +0000, Alex Merry wrote:
> > There are also several that said v2+ but not v2/v3/e.v. I'm not
> > sure how we reconcile with those who say v2/v3/e.v. but not v2+ if
> > they worked on the same file...
>
> Just note that the file contains code under both terms, it'll come
> down to the lower common denominator which would be v2/v3/e.v.
No, it'll come down to the intersection of v2+ and v2/v3/e.v. which is
{v2, v3, any v2+ license approved by the e.V.}. Relicensing under an
arbitrary license approved by the e.V. would not be possible.
Regards,
Ingo
_______________________________________________
Kde-licensing mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-licensing
signature.asc
(application/pgp-signature, 194 B)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.4-svn0 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQBHTKzSGnR+RTDgudgRAvXWAJ4gYinLBYa+2wUM/QnR3yy48oILzgCfb7Ic ceOcQwchbfM6OyihAd1in54= =Ps/w -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----