On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 10:38 AM, John Vandenberg <jayvdb(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 10:16 AM, Federico Leva
(Nemo)
<nemowiki(a)gmail.com> wrote:
This re-licensing seems even more legally complex
than ours (although
uncontroversial).
How can they relicense without explicit permission from each
contributor, or an update clause in the licence?
I should rtfm.
"The current copyright notice states that the copyright belongs to Canonical. "
--
John Vandenberg