Am Donnerstag, den 25.08.2016, 20:56 +0200 schrieb Elmar Stellnberger: (snip) > > Anyone else who could assert me that an additional GPL-3 clause > would > do what I want: i.e. give an additional right to relicense to a > group > called original authors only; let this be called GPL-3 + relicensing > by > authors. The GPL-3 amendment would more or less be the same as #7 of > C-FSL and a statement to tag the GPL-3 abbreviation with the > relicensing > by authors flag. > Is it really true that this can not be interpreted as restriction > just because any contributor would have to consent in giving the > original authors this additional right. It means that someone who > does > not consent is not allowed to apply changes because then the whole > license would need to turn invalid.
Actually, I believe this is problematic in terms of DFSG (For a more based answer, I suggest you to post this question to debian-legal.) For it dependis on what you mean with "right to relicense". But maybe one step back.. As Author of your work you have always the right to relicense, as in "from this release on, it is license xyz.". Note the "from this release on" part, because retrospectivly you cannot change the rules*. Then, it is easy as long as you are the sole author for the complete work, if they are other people with copyright on the work, they need to consent with it or their parts removed/replaced. (You previously wrote smth along this, so this should be nothing new for you) (* as you know, this is tested by the "Tentacles of Evil") But I guess this is not what you meant... I guess your're fearing that someone patches the software, you'd like to the change, like to incoropoate it, and then relicense the whole thing. As said, if you reach out to the author doing so and get the consent, everyone's cool. If your license term wants to avoid that you need that consent, I think that is problematic and wer're in Tentacles' Land again: You could effectivly take away the rights of that author, worst case even make something out of it closed source without the author being able to object. So IMHO at least the relicensing term must ensure that you cannot revoke existing rights. Usually, the FLOSS world solves this problem with copyright assignments, not with the license. And copyright assignments might deter contributors, so probably also a blanco-relicense statement. As said, this is my feeling on the topic; please ask on debian-legal, as a public mailing list you can for sure post your license and questions. Not unikely that someone answer. (It is also possible that I did not get your intentions.) > > Finally I would like to ask anyone who knows about another issue > with > C-FSL to share it with me as the programs in question will likely be > available under C-FSL + GPL-3 + relicensing by authors for some > ongoing > time. > > up to now I have noted the following issues for C-FSL: > * explicitly allow unchanged redistribution > * version number to use as default: v1.1 > * mention online URL in the license > > see: https://www.elstel.org/license/C-FSL-v1.0.txt Again, please avoid making own licenses. This is a road doomed to failure. The topic is so complicated that even law experts and law department struggle to get it right: avoiding loopholes and really make it watertight while preserving the spirit of FLOSS.... > Regards, > Elmar > -- tobi Disclaimer: IANAL.
