Re: [GNUnet-developers] copyright assignment

[Christian Grothoff]

On 12/29/2015 12:14 PM, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> Christian Grothoff <address@hidden> skribis:
> 
>> The reason is that situations continue to pop up where the ability to
>> dual-license some code would be helpful for the project (similar to how
>> we added GPL+eCos to GNU libmicrohttpd in the past).  If we had the
>> copyright with GNUnet e.V., then at least we had a relatively small
>> group (the annually elected "Vorstand") representing the developers in a
>> position of making decisions about dual-licensing.
> 
> I’m guessing the second license would necessarily be more permissive
> than the GPL, no?  Wouldn’t this amount to effectively relicensing
> everything under a permissive license?

It would not necessarily be more permissive. For example, I have in the
past had cases where people asked for a commercial license for GNU
libmicrohttpd, which is already under LGPL. And that commercial license
was with the clause that they'd share all the extensions they write
under LGPL as well. So this was totally not rational, but the world
simply isn't rational.

Also, it would not necessarily cover *everything*.

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature