> > I personally think it could be useful to find a way to relicense code > > without requiring him to claim copyright over code when he's not convinced he has > the > > right to do so. > > If he isn't convinced he has any copyright claim over changes he has made then I'm > not sure what the problem is. >
It's going to be difficult for me to describe his views since I can only go by what I remember of the blog posts he pulled down. But as I recall, a large portion of his problem with claiming copyright over files he contributed to is that he would knowingly be involving himself in the process of relicensing the entire file when, in his belief, this relicensing was not legally valid. It would only be legally valid if a thorough audit of the code was performed, and every contributor consented to the license changes.
> He seems more interested in asserting his rights on a file that he added some rom > lines too (which I don't believe are copyrightable).
In my opinion, Haze does have too broad a definition of what changes are copyrightable, though there's certainly going to be considerable gray area in a project like this.