On 03/22/2017 12:39 AM, Martin Roth wrote:
I guess I dislike this as a reason for choosing our license. If some future Stack Exchange replacement comes along using a different license, what then? We're stuck with what we've already picked.
To work around this, either the rights should be transferred to Coreboot (if it has a legal entity that is), or you can license it with something like "CC-BY-SA 3.0 or later"
Dima.
On 28/03/2017, Dumitru Ursu dima@ceata.org wrote:
On 03/22/2017 12:39 AM, Martin Roth wrote:
I guess I dislike this as a reason for choosing our license. If some future Stack Exchange replacement comes along using a different license, what then? We're stuck with what we've already picked.
To work around this, either the rights should be transferred to Coreboot (if it has a legal entity that is),
A reasonable suggestion. It would allow Coreboot to dual-license the content under additional licenses as might be necessary.
or you can license it with something like "CC-BY-SA 3.0 or later"
That would not make sense, because all CC BY-SA licenses already include a clause along the lines "this version of the license or a later one". For example, see 4(b): https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode
Regards
-
Dumitru Ursu -
Sam Kuper