[M3devel] parse.c licensing question, dual?

[Jay K]

Some number should be reasonable yes, but I think you exaggerate how much I've done. :)
I'll look later.

 - Jay



----------------------------------------
> Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2016 15:26:39 -0500
> From: rodney_bates at lcwb.coop
> To: m3devel at elegosoft.com
> Subject: Re: [M3devel] parse.c licensing question, dual?
>
>
>
> On 06/27/2016 03:19 PM, Jay K wrote:
>> Thank you. I was hoping that. So parse.c isn't stuck if it had an answer, and m3-def isn't stuck because I wrote it (possibly derived from DEC -- it is closely related to the rest of m3cg).
>>
>> But parse.c might be ownerless and stuck?
>
> Isn't there some law that if more than 25% of a work is changed, it ceases
> to be a derived work but becomes a new work by the changer? If so, I would
> guess the current parse.c would meet this criterion, and I think Jay would
> own it, since I think he has done the majority of the changes.
>
> IANAL.
>
>>
>> - Jay
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------
>>> Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2016 22:17:38 +0200
>>> From: lemming at henning-thielemann.de
>>> To: jay.krell at cornell.edu
>>> CC: hosking at purdue.edu; m3devel at elegosoft.com
>>> Subject: Re: [M3devel] parse.c licensing question, dual?
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, 27 Jun 2016, Jay K wrote:
>>>
>>>> Can the owner relicense parse.c,
>>>
>>> Sure, the owner can always relicense.
>>>
>>>> or it is stuck with GPL because it links to gcc?
>>>
>>> He can choose any license that is compatible with GPL.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> M3devel mailing list
>> M3devel at elegosoft.com
>> https://m3lists.elegosoft.com/mailman/listinfo/m3devel
>>
>
> --
> Rodney Bates
> rodney.m.bates at acm.org
> _______________________________________________
> M3devel mailing list
> M3devel at elegosoft.com
> https://m3lists.elegosoft.com/mailman/listinfo/m3devel