[Greasemonkey] GPL compatibility

[Justin Mason]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


Jeremy Dunck writes:
> On 6/7/05, Mark Pilgrim <pilgrim at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 6/6/05, Aaron Boodman <zboogs at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Ok, so we all agree. What now?
> > 
> > http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl.html#SEC4
> 
> Apologies for not being clear.  We've agreed to MIT license, not GPL.
> 
> What now?  :)
> 
> I googled around a bit, but didn't come up with much.  I think we just
> slap the license text into all our files, and that's that.

FWIW, when we relicensed SpamAssassin (Perl dual license -> ASL), we had
to get hold of hand-signed approval from all copyright holders (that is,
contributors of substantial amounts of work).   Fax or written letter did
the trick, using the Apache Contributor License Agreement forms.

This may be overkill for you guys, but there's a middle ground too -- get
a GPG-signed text file from each contributor.  Digital sigs are legally
admissible in the US still, though, iirc.

We dropped code contributions that we couldn't get a signed CLA for,
by backtracking through cvs, finding the patch application, and backing
out the code leaving a "REIMPLEMENT" comment in its wake.

Anyway, once you've got approval, yep, just slap in the new license
notices and cvs/svn tag ;)

- --j.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Exmh CVS

iD8DBQFCphtvMJF5cimLx9ARAsqDAJ9qNSDNoHqVB68l7EUM77w+7wfEXACgiS7t
JbQZpxrh5CgdUM4fKpCiWPc=
=1nP5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----