4 ms·
> On a reading of how it was done, I guess if anyone had contributed stuff under the GPL and particularly objected to LGPL relicensing the could probably still
by jbk 14y ago
> On a reading of how it was done, I guess if anyone had contributed stuff under the GPL and particularly objected to LGPL relicensing the could probably still make arguments about derivative works...
Read part 1 and 3
> Interestingly there's no mention of dissenting opinions from anywhere. Not that I'm implying that this move is a bad thing, I would just expect if you ask a large enough group of developers any question about licensing you would get a variety of arguments cropping up.
Because the vast majority of VLC developers want their code to be used, not fight over licenses.
- Nursie 14y ago> Read part 1 and 3 I have read part 1, didn't know there was a part 3. I'm just saying that imagine (in a hypothetical situation) there is a large code module written by an original author under the GPL. Over time it is worked on and line by line it is eventually fully replaced with new code by 5 other people. Even if you get the 5 to agree to a license change, the original 1 would still have an argument that it was all derived from his original work and should remain under GPL. I have no idea if this situation applies to you, it was just an idle thought.
- jbk 14y ago> I'm just saying that imagine (in a hypothetical situation) there is a large code module written by an original author under the GPL. This is not the case here. And part 1 explains exactly this, with the git log part. Part 3 will close the loop altogether.