file headers

[Erik Bågfors]

2006/2/25, John Arbash Meinel <john at arbash-meinel.com>:
> Erik Bågfors wrote:
> >>> 1) The "This software is under GPL v2 or later" means that I as a user
> >>> can choose to use it at GPL v3 whenever I feel like it
> >> I believe (IANAL) that 'I as a user can choose to use it at GPL v3 whenever
> >> I feel like it' implies 'I can give it to you as GPL v3-or-later, even though
> >> I got it as GPL v2-or-later' -- and of course you won't be able to go back.
> >
> > Not sure about that....
> >
> >>> 2) canonical cannot change the licence in any way unless I as a
> >>> copyright owner gives them my permission..
> >> ... I believe the very phrase 'or, at your option, any later version' is such
> >> permission, though for a very limited change.
> >
> > No, you misunderstand what I'm saying. They can't change the license
> > in any way. It's currently under GPLv2+, and if they would like to
> > change it to LGPL or BSD or ..... they can't.
>
> Actually, they can't change the code that is already released. Correct.
> You can't retroactively change the license.
>
> But...
> In the future they can chose to release the code under any license they
> want. Including the Canonical Draconian Sell Your Soul License. I don't
> expect them to do that, just as I don't expect the FSF to do such a thing.

No, they can't.  Not unless they own the copyright, and to do that,
every contributor has to say that they sign the copyright over to
them. (Well, I don't know if it counts if you just add a patch or
something, but if you do something significant, then it should).

> > Personally, I don't really care much about this, just want to know if
> > I can say "Copyright Erik Bågfors" on stuff I create for bzr or if I
> > should say "Copyright canonical"...
> >
> > /Erik
>
> I do think they want it to be Copyright Canonical, *because* they may
> chose to change the license for all or part of the code.

That's fine with me. As long as each contributor is asked.

> Specifically, Martin just mentioned changing some of it to the Python
> Source License. (Like if Python decided that some of the Test
> infrastructure was generally useful, they may want to incorporate it
> into the standard library, which would require a different license).
>
> So they can change the license if they have the copyright. That is the
> point of giving them the license, to make it easier to handle the code
> base in the future. I've decided to trust them with my code, because I
> think they are responsible people. I probably trust the FSF more, but
> I'm okay with trusting Canonical.

So am I.  But I do expect each contributor to be asked to sign the
copyright over before any such change (or, even before they say
Copyright Canonical).

/Erik