On Sat, Jun 07, 2003 at 01:08:21PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Fri, Jun 06, 2003 at 02:25:45PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
Other than that issue, I think this would nicely address Debian's needs.
I'm pleased to see MySQL AB taking this step to clarify the license of
the client
The idea of writing a single license for both software and
documentation (i.e., for content) is a good one. Perhaps
this could be done in GPL version 4. I would hope that in
extending it, the beauty of the current GPL is preserved.
What is beautiful about the GPL is that it grants the licensee
GPL 3 is not at the stage to ask for public comments.
Can someone remind me how exactly the license above is incompatible with
the GNU GPL?
Each one is a copyleft. The GPL says the combined work must be under
the GPL. The simple license says the combined work must be under that
license. Both cannot be true at once.
4) The freedom to change the Work for any purpose[1], to distribute
one's changes, and to distribute the Work in modified form. Access
to the form of the work which is preferred for making modifications,
if applicable, is a precondition for this.
OK, so there's lots of argument about
On Saturday, Jun 14, 2003, at 07:03 US/Eastern, Richard Braakman
That's a lot easier than Here's a Debian CD. And here's my solemn
promise to provide source CDs for this Debian version to anyone who
asks for the next three years. Please wait while I go buy a CD
burner.
(Note that 2(c) is
RMS said:
GPL 3 is not at the stage to ask for public comments.
Rumor has it that it will contain loads of stuff which Debian considers
non-free. This is a *problem*.
The FDL public comment period resulted in *no* significant changes due
to the public comments.
RMS has declared that he has
On Sunday, Jun 15, 2003, at 12:45 US/Eastern, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Deliberately obfusticated or encrypted forms and program-generated
forms
are *not* preferred forms for making modifications.
Program-generated forms can become the preferred form. Its certainly
possible to use
On Fri, Jun 13, 2003 at 12:57:13AM -0400, Greg Pomerantz wrote:
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would say that the controlling preference is that of the person who
last modified the Work and distributed it in that modified form. Anyone
downstream from that person would have to
J == J D Hood [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
J I suggest that the definition of 'preferred form for making
J modifications' be information-theoretical.
Why? What real-world problem does this solve? Have we actually run
into situations where it was not obvious in a particular instance what
On Sun, Jun 15, 2003 at 05:15:14PM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
Why? What real-world problem does this solve? Have we actually run
into situations where it was not obvious in a particular instance what
the preferred form for modifications was?
I know of one thorny problem in this area: many
On Sun, Jun 15, 2003 at 07:47:32PM +0100, J.D. Hood wrote:
I suggest that the definition of 'preferred form for
making modifications' be information-theoretical.
When source code is compiled into binary code there is a
loss of information, as indicated by the fact that you
cannot get the
RMS said:
Reiser's statement was inaccurate. For GPL version 3 we are
considering requirements for preserving certain limited author
information in the source code, and making explicit that other
GPL-compatible licenses that are present on parts of the code cannot
be removed from the source, but
On Sun, Jun 15, 2003 at 01:28:18PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
The first question seems to be the more important one to this
discussion, since being able to use/compile/edit the software is more
fundamental than being able to redistribute it in modified form.
FWIW, I disagree with this
On Sun, Jun 15, 2003 at 08:10:12PM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote:
I look forward to read a draft of the GPL v3, since Hans Reiser did
mention that the equivalent of 'Invariant Sections' would be added
in the forthcoming GPL v3.
Reiser's statement was inaccurate. For GPL version
15 matches
Mail list logo
