Merging network and network-bytestring: license question

[Tyson Whitehead]

On October 28, 2010 22:48:56 wren ng thornton wrote:
> does not compromise the original requirement to get permission from the
> University to use their name promotionally. Combining the two as "the
> copyright holders" or "the University, its contributors, nor Johan
> Tibell" etc, would have the same effect as the two versions of clause 3
> stated separately. If someone wanted to use the University's name (or
> yours) then they'd have to get their (or your) permission in writing,
> same as if stated separately.

I would be pretty careful about touching any license wording.  It reminds me 
of a pretty serious spat that went down awhile ago because some BSD wireless 
code was "re-licensed" under GPL.  The individual who did it had thought it 
was okay as the BSD requirements were a subset of the GPL ones.

The issue is that there are three pieces of work.  The University's, yours, 
and the combined work.  Touching the license terms makes it unclear what the 
permissions are with respect to all these parts.  Specifically, this would make 
it not clear that the name Johan Tibell is not sacred to University's code.

That is, if extract just the University's portion from the derivative work, I 
should be able to use it under just the University's license requirements.  
Adjusting their license in anyway interferes with this as it is no longer 
clear what the requirements were on just that portion of the code.

(IANL either, but that was the understanding I was left with from following 
the whole BSD GPL re-license thing, and I can see the BSD guy's point)

Cheers!  -Tyson
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
Url : http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/libraries/attachments/20101028/9da4f88e/attachment-0001.bin