The GPL never specifically addresses the issue of relicensing (that I am aware of in my limited knowledge). It may be possible as long as the original rights afforded under GPL are never diminished (free to copy, distribute and modify the source). However I don’t see any reason a relicense would be necessary except to restrict these rights which is not in the spirit of the GPL and would infact violate it.

The VP explained that to open source something like Java, the legal copyright of every line of code had to be identified, recorded and a signature obtained to change the license. They estimated that for a normal enterprise application this would be a 2-5 year process involving a team of 100 people for Java.

By extension, to change Joomla’s licensing, it seems you would have to identify the ownership of every line of code and then have them all change their licensing. Big deal.

I personally like this aspect of the GPL becuase it really makes the software into a public good. At the same time, this underscores the importance of GPl 2.

GPL scares me! It also scares many people that do modifications to code bases. That is why Apache came around. Apache Foundation does a lot of work on this. I have been following several projects that have converted to the apache 2.0. there is a lot of work involved the apache guys have the lawyers to make it happen safely.

Large organization appreciate the work apache does to protect the users of such software. Thus making it a lot easier to bring Apache 2.0 licensed software in there house.

Of course there is always exceptions. I just know I don’t need a lawyer on my staff to use Apache licensed software.

without a legal assignment how can anyone claim a copyright on the aggregtaed work of others.