<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 5:12 AM, Ganesh Sittampalam <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:ganesh@earth.li">ganesh@earth.li</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Hi,<br>
<br>
I would like my contributions to darcs to be licensed under<br>
BSD3 to assist integration with general Haskell infrastructure<br>
and with camp. It's not practical to annotate every file I've<br>
contributed to, but this one I wrote initially so it might as<br>
well change.<br>
<br>
Any other of my contributions, in the past or future, are also<br>
hereby offered under a BSD3 licence. If I ever revoke this<br>
declaration I will post to the mailing list to say so. (Obviously<br>
any revocation could only apply to contributions made after that.)<br></blockquote><div><br>My only question about doing this is: Can you really license your changes to Darcs as BSD3 where they are changes to existing GPL'd code? I thought that the GPL applies to derivative works is why I ask. So, if I'm understanding it correctly, then I think what you're trying to do only makes sense for 1) bits where you are the original author of the that bit 2) modifications to darcs where the previous authors agree to release their changes as BSD3.<br>
<br>Another case I'm unclear about is when you are the OA (original author) of a chunk and then someone who hasn't agreed to relicense as BSD3 changes something in your code. In that case, I think you'd have to revert (and rewrite) instead of just rewriting if you want to keep it BSD3.<br>
<br>Just something to think about. I don't object to any of this relicensing, I'm just trying to understand how it works.<br><br>Jason<br><br><br></div></div>