Licensing change: Audacious - GPLv3 --> BSD

[Michael Schwendt]

On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 14:20:32 -0400, Simo Sorce wrote:

> Can you stop the useless hyperbole ?

Sure, can the useless generalization and pedantry stop, too?
 
> The reason why nobody is telling you a hard rule is that there are no
> hard rules, but often it will be decided on case by case basis.

Hence my initial question on what contribution we talk about? And on
possible reasons why there have been no credits anywhere at all.

My interest was in the code/patch contribution only, as the translation
work has been given credit for.

> So when re-licensing you have to be paranoid but most importantly do it
> with the support of a lawyer that knows how to minimize ill effects
> should someone later decide you did something wrong.

Oh, legal advice. How many small and losely organized FLOSS projects with no
commercial backing consult a lawyer when they relicence or merge code from
other projects?
 
> That's all was really on the table I think, all people really *can* say
> is that you cannot assume much about who can claims copyright until you
> analyze the specific contribution. This is one reason why some people
> insist in pretending you to surrender any copyright to the project owner
> when you contribute code.

Yes, please, can we analyze specific contributions?
I've pointed out more than once that many files have been replaced or
deleted, which increases the chance that old(er) contributions and inherited
code sections are not left anymore.

> In general if you are doing things in good faith everything will work
> fine in the end. Just don't try to be casual when addressing the matter
> as it is not something to underestimate like you seem to be doing.

Not clear what you think I underestimate.

-- 
Fedora release 17 (Beefy Miracle) - Linux 3.4.4-5.fc17.x86_64
loadavg: 0.09 0.24 0.38