Subject: Re: For Approval: BSD License, PostgreSQL Variant
From: "Chris Travers" <chris.travers@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 18:43:55 -0700

Although I normally follow Russ's advice and avoid replying to those
who are probably mere troublemakers, I have been thinking a lot about
the sort of case that Mr Wallace makes, in part because it is
deceptively similar to cases I have made in the past.

On 10/11/07, Denial Wallace <danw6144@insightbb.com> wrote:


>  Only the *owner* of a copyrighted work has the *exclusive* right to
>  *authorize* (license) his work -- this fact excludes nonexclusive licensees
>  from "relicensing" since a nonexclusive licensee has no ownership rights.
>
>

IANAL.

The SimPL automatically creates a dual-licensed work.  I.e. the work
is available under either the SimPL or the GPL.  You can opt to follow
the restrictions of either one.  Although the original remains
licensed under either terms regardless of how it is distributed the
SImPL, the SimPL does not require advertisement of this fact beyond
the fact that it is available under the GPL, when it is combined in
this way.

Thus "relicense" is a bad term, but any alternatives seem cumbersome.

Best Wishes,
Chris Travers