thank you! We will go ahead with that then.
On 01/25/2017 04:51 PM, Roger Binns wrote:
> On 25/01/17 07:28, Lukas Erlacher wrote:
>> I joined baldurmen/pollo and ook as maintainer of ISBG and we would now
>> like to change the license from your "whatever OSI license" statement to
>> GPLv3 so it can be packaged - pollo would like to package it for debian.
> You are correct in that you can just fork, claim any OSI license and are
> good. I haven't used isbg in 15 years so I think the current
> maintainers opinions matter most - whatever you think works best.
>> I understand the logic of that theory but I find it a little bit dubious
>> - licenses like "WTFPL" are often seen as not being a legally valid
>> license at all,
> For my APSW project the license body is as liberal as I could find (PNG)
> with the "or whatever OSI license at your option" added. The goal was
> to remove as much license friction as possible. So PNG is there to keep
> people happy who want an explicit license, while others can pick and choose.
>> therefore I would like to ask for your explicit blessing to make the
>> project GPLv3.
> Yes, you have my blessing to make the project GPLv3. I also recommend
> that the current maintainers no longer take my opinions into
> consideration, and do whatever they consider appropriate in the future.