> > but other developers take responsibility for auditing the source code and only > changing > > the license when they've got whatever permissions are required to do so. I'm > > certainly not sure that this will work, but it seemed worthwhile to throw the idea > > out there. > > It's what we are doing, it's not a new idea.
I didn't think the part you quoted was a new idea. The idea I haven't heard discussed publicly (though it may well have been discussed privately), is how Haze could authorize his code to be relicensed. Right or wrong, he doesn't believe that he can do what he has been asked to do--asserting copyright over specific files--without committing licensing and copyright violations. But, as bad an idea as Haze may believe relicensing is, it also appears to me that, the decision having been made, he doesn't want to actively harm the project by making everyone waste time rewriting his code. (He's explicitly stated that he won't actually sue over this.) If I'm correct in all that, then the solution is for Haze to grant permission for his code to be relicensed, but transfer responsibility for the actual implementation of this to other developers in such a way that they alone would risk legal repercussions if it wasn't done correctly. Since plenty of developers are confident they can do this correctly, taking on that risk shouldn't be a problem for them. I don't know if any statement would convince Haze he would be in the clear, but I offered my suggestion for what such a statement might be.
Index 
Flat 
Re: Update
Reply
Re: and what's really sad
