3 ms·
The email can state all it wants, but from a legal point of view, assuming consent merely by absence of dissent is nonsense -- at least in the jurisdictions I'm
by ckastner 10y ago
The email can state all it wants, but from a legal point of view, assuming consent merely by absence of dissent is nonsense -- at least in the jurisdictions I'm familiar with. There are exceptions to this, but this is not one of those cases.
Just assuming that the email has been read is already a far stretch.
- jwilk 10y agoThe process raises my eyebrows, too, but apparently that's how it was done for other projects: * https://mailman.videolan.org/pipermail/vlc-commits/2011-November/010353.html https://mailman.videolan.org/pipermail/vlc-commits/2011-Nove... (grep for "It is possible") * https://dolphin-emu.org/blog/2015/05/25/relicensing-dolphin/#a-legal-gray-area https://dolphin-emu.org/blog/2015/05/25/relicensing-dolphin/... * https://blogs.fsfe.org/ciaran/?p=58 https://blogs.fsfe.org/ciaran/?p=58 (grep for "it is not necessary")
- ckastner 10y agoAh. In those cases, it appears that the overwhelming majority (>= 95%) of developers explicitly agreed to the relicensing, with the remaining minority at least not objecting. That is still not assent by the remaining 5%, but was apparently sufficient for relicensing of the whole work in the relevant jurisdictions. In that context, the quote from the OpenSSL email appears to be well-phrased, as it really only assumes the absence of objections.