[nanomsg] Re: MIT Licensing
- From: "John D. Mitchell" <jdmitchell@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: nanomsg@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 30 May 2014 09:24:28 -0700
That's pretty iffy. Much better to have explicit contributor agreements for
each person.
Cheers,
John
On May 30, 2014, at 07:33 , Garrett D'Amore <garrett@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> It doesn't. But if the existing file is licensed under MIT and no new notice
> is placed with the copyright addition then I think the common convention is
> to assume that the new changes are licensed under the same existing license.
> Now changing the license would be a different matter and in that case a new
> notice in the file would be needed.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>> On May 30, 2014, at 12:19 AM, Martin Sustrik <sustrik@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> Hi Garrett,
>>
>>> Well, I'm not the package maintainers. But for those packages that
>>> I do maintain (illumos, mangos, etc.) I ask that contributors
>>> update the copyright statements in the files that they are updating
>>> as part of their patch submission.
>>
>> Are you sure it works that way? I am not a lawyer, but my feeling is
>> that claiming a copyright on the file doesn't necessarily mean you are
>> providing your patched under the MIT license...
>>
>> Martin
>>
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>> Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
>> Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
>>
>> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJTiDEEAAoJENTpVjxCNN9Y9VwH/28ihWcGHbvgVIBTA5H2hzOk
>> mKty/GLUtt2qRMm9oo7Hu5nmCyI6JxMtd4RCLs8Wz11RdTPTLs0N3+iPMfI7ZNhc
>> Rf3uv/9l6sC6uamCC5EsZByrqYenGKDOG72UOxdFuixx66Wo1bH71niqK5cKF0Ti
>> 9IxB8LL5t21bXZrcOc1MPYoc/f5Mz1zerqjjxWQL844lycSZzIfNNy0bNSrqf8TZ
>> dTvN/Tw3mc6T6d+ck+yqvdXOpZqnRam961XIiN6OVDyKMPEYWPAfrC+0xiL51k/l
>> EXKGs3uezaLPfzFwvy0QQoN7VefHqx1vdibyN0dI3H2sii6/CPR4rKHbW0QQ2Yg=
>> =BJT/
>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>
>
Other related posts:
