with LGPLv2.1.
Josselin mentions the risks that might arise in specifying an or
later license. They are real, but can be mitigated via the proxy
clause in the (L)GPLv3.
If the Program specifies that a proxy can decide which future
versions of the GNU General Public License can be used
From Christian Fredrik Kalager Schaller on Friday, 09 July, 2010:
On Fri, 2010-07-09 at 16:53 +0200, Maciej Piechotka wrote:
On 09/07/10 16:37, Christian Fredrik Kalager Schaller wrote:
I would strongly prefer glib to not change its license, we are keeping
the lgplv2.1 in GStreamer, partly
in the
(L)GPLv3.
If the Program specifies that a proxy can decide which future
versions of the GNU General Public License can be used, that proxy's
public statement of acceptance of a version permanently authorizes you
to choose that version for the Program.
Happy hacking,
Andy
Not true! For example, when you assign to the FSF, the papers you sign
contain a number of guarantees. From an old version of the assignment
papers (you should contact the FSF if you are considering using this
language, as it might have been updated):
4. FSF agrees that all distribution
Le mardi 06 juillet 2010 à 09:00 -0400, Ryan Lortie a écrit :
Anybody who has an application that is GPLv2-only and has accepted
enough contributions that it has become an unreasonable proposition to
relicense has made a significant mistake.
Anyone who licenses his work under a license “or
Hi;
Le mardi 06 juillet 2010 à 09:00 -0400, Ryan Lortie a écrit :
Anybody who has an application that is GPLv2-only and has accepted
enough contributions that it has become an unreasonable proposition
to relicense has made a significant mistake.
Anyone who licenses his work under a
Paul Cutler told me about this thread and suggested it might be useful
if I commented. I think most of the issues have been well covered in
the thread; I nevertheless quote some of the points below and make a few
comments that hopefully might help to bookend the discussion.
Juanjo Marin wrote at
I would strongly prefer glib to not change its license, we are keeping
the lgplv2.1 in GStreamer, partly because a lot of people making
products with GStreamer prefer it over lgplv3. If glib switched under us
it would make our license stability a bit of a joke. If someone wants to
use glib under
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
On 09/07/10 16:37, Christian Fredrik Kalager Schaller wrote:
I would strongly prefer glib to not change its license, we are keeping
the lgplv2.1 in GStreamer, partly because a lot of people making
products with GStreamer prefer it over lgplv3.
On Fri, 2010-07-09 at 16:53 +0200, Maciej Piechotka wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
On 09/07/10 16:37, Christian Fredrik Kalager Schaller wrote:
I would strongly prefer glib to not change its license, we are keeping
the lgplv2.1 in GStreamer, partly because a lot
Hello,
On Tue 06 Jul 2010 14:54, Holger Berndt bern...@gmx.de writes:
On Tue, 06 Jul 2010 09:00:09 -0400 Ryan Lortie wrote:
On Tue, 2010-07-06 at 09:26 +0200, Vincent Untz wrote:
Do you feel okay with the idea of allowing proprietary apps to use
our platform but not GPLv2 apps?
In
Hi;
The problem is not only with third-party apps that use the platform.
There are also some significant GPLv2 only libraries that GNOME apps
may want to use. As examples, Poppler and ClamAV come to my mind.
Incidentally, this is one of the major reasons that GNU PDF was made a
high
On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 10:48 AM, Ryan Lortie de...@desrt.ca wrote:
hi Everyone,
We have 3.0 upon us now, so I guess we should make a choice one way or
another.
I think any attempts to relicense the bigger platform libraries like
gtk or glib would end like the dbus relicensing efforts.
On 07/08/2010 01:45 PM, Christian Persch wrote:
I can't be the only one who was excited about discovering there's a
LGPL3+ pdf library out there! I work a bit on evince, and I had never
heard about it. However, the excitement was brief, and terminated by
actually checking out the code...
Same
hi Matthias,
On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 14:01 -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote:
I think any attempts to relicense the bigger platform libraries like
gtk or glib would end like the dbus relicensing efforts.
We don't need anyone's permission to change the licence when the current
licence includes or at
On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 19:45 +0200, Christian Persch wrote:
I can't be the only one who was excited about discovering there's a
LGPL3+ pdf library out there! I work a bit on evince, and I had never
heard about it. However, the excitement was brief, and terminated by
actually checking out the
Le lundi 05 juillet 2010, à 21:58 -0400, Ryan Lortie a écrit :
hi Vincent,
On Mon, 2010-07-05 at 17:18 +0200, Vincent Untz wrote:
It's worth thinking really hard before moving to LGPLv3 (at least; not
sure about GPLv3): LGPLv3 is incompatible with GPLv2, according to the
FSF; that's a
hi Vincent,
On Tue, 2010-07-06 at 09:26 +0200, Vincent Untz wrote:
Do you feel okay with the idea of allowing proprietary apps to use our
platform but not GPLv2 apps?
In short, yes.
Anybody who has an application that is GPLv2-only and has accepted
enough contributions that it has become an
Hi!
hi Vincent,
On Tue, 2010-07-06 at 09:26 +0200, Vincent Untz wrote:
Do you feel okay with the idea of allowing proprietary apps to use our
platform but not GPLv2 apps?
In short, yes.
Anybody who has an application that is GPLv2-only and has accepted
enough contributions that it has
On Tue, 2010-07-06 at 13:12 +, j...@jsschmid.de wrote:
Well, while I guess all my modules are LGPL/GPLv2+ would that still
prevent me from linking against LGPLv3 things if I don't convert them to
GPLv3?
No.
At the point that your application is used with a LGPLv3 library then it
would
Le mardi 06 juillet 2010, à 09:26 -0400, Ryan Lortie a écrit :
On Tue, 2010-07-06 at 13:12 +, j...@jsschmid.de wrote:
Well, while I guess all my modules are LGPL/GPLv2+ would that still
prevent me from linking against LGPLv3 things if I don't convert them to
GPLv3?
No.
At the
Hey Ryan,
On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 9:00 AM, Ryan Lortie de...@desrt.ca wrote:
hi Vincent,
On Tue, 2010-07-06 at 09:26 +0200, Vincent Untz wrote:
Do you feel okay with the idea of allowing proprietary apps to use our
platform but not GPLv2 apps?
In short, yes.
Anybody who has an application
Hi,
Le mardi 06 juillet 2010, à 09:00 -0400, Ryan Lortie a écrit :
hi Vincent,
On Tue, 2010-07-06 at 09:26 +0200, Vincent Untz wrote:
Do you feel okay with the idea of allowing proprietary apps to use our
platform but not GPLv2 apps?
In short, yes.
Anybody who has an application
Hi!
At the point that your application is used with a LGPLv3 library then it
would conceptually be 'upgraded' to GPLv3 at that time (so that the
GPLv2 clause preventing linking with LGPLv3 disappears). This doesn't
mean that you have to change the licence of existing code -- you just
keep
On Tue, 06 Jul 2010 09:00:09 -0400 Ryan Lortie wrote:
On Tue, 2010-07-06 at 09:26 +0200, Vincent Untz wrote:
Do you feel okay with the idea of allowing proprietary apps to use
our platform but not GPLv2 apps?
In short, yes.
Anybody who has an application that is GPLv2-only and has
On 07/06/2010 03:00 PM, Ryan Lortie wrote:
hi Vincent,
On Tue, 2010-07-06 at 09:26 +0200, Vincent Untz wrote:
Do you feel okay with the idea of allowing proprietary apps to use our
platform but not GPLv2 apps?
In short, yes.
Can't the platform libraries of gnome be considered as a
Le mardi 06 juillet 2010 à 13:49 +, j...@jsschmid.de a écrit :
Hi!
At the point that your application is used with a LGPLv3 library then it
would conceptually be 'upgraded' to GPLv3 at that time (so that the
GPLv2 clause preventing linking with LGPLv3 disappears). This doesn't
mean
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
On 06/07/10 15:12, j...@jsschmid.de wrote:
Hi!
hi Vincent,
On Tue, 2010-07-06 at 09:26 +0200, Vincent Untz wrote:
Do you feel okay with the idea of allowing proprietary apps to use our
platform but not GPLv2 apps?
In short, yes.
On Tue, 06 Jul 2010 16:01:54 +0200
Steve Frécinaux nudr...@gmail.com wrote:
On 07/06/2010 03:00 PM, Ryan Lortie wrote:
hi Vincent,
On Tue, 2010-07-06 at 09:26 +0200, Vincent Untz wrote:
Do you feel okay with the idea of allowing proprietary apps to use our
platform but not GPLv2 apps?
On Tue, 2010-07-06 at 09:34 -0400, William Jon McCann wrote:
On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 9:00 AM, Ryan Lortie de...@desrt.ca wrote:
Anybody who has an application that is GPLv2-only and has accepted
enough contributions that it has become an unreasonable proposition to
relicense has made a
hi Ted,
On Tue, 2010-07-06 at 12:12 -0500, Ted Gould wrote:
IANAL but I'm
curious if a standard exception couldn't be drafted for LGPLv3 to
allow linking with GPLv2 programs. Perhaps with work, that could be
GNOME policy going
On 06/07/10 18:17, Ryan Lortie wrote:
hi Ted,
On Tue, 2010-07-06 at 12:12 -0500, Ted Gould wrote:
IANAL but I'm
curious if a standard exception couldn't be drafted for LGPLv3 to
allow linking with GPLv2 programs. Perhaps with work,
On Tue, 2010-07-06 at 13:17 -0400, Ryan Lortie wrote:
On Tue, 2010-07-06 at 12:12 -0500, Ted Gould wrote:
IANAL but I'm
curious if a standard exception couldn't be drafted for LGPLv3 to
allow linking with GPLv2 programs. Perhaps
El mar, 06-07-2010 a las 12:32 -0500, Ted Gould escribió:
On Tue, 2010-07-06 at 13:17 -0400, Ryan Lortie wrote:
It's the GPLv2 in the program code that states you can't link this
against anything other than GPLv2 code.
Nothing we could add to the library licence (other than
hi Everyone,
I recently received an email from a company in our ecosystem asking me
to relicense a smallish piece of code from GPLv3 to (L)GPLv2.
I'm not really interested in inciting a flamewar on the topic or
anything, but I'm wondering how people feel, in general about the
licensing direction
Le lundi 05 juillet 2010, à 10:48 -0400, Ryan Lortie a écrit :
hi Everyone,
I recently received an email from a company in our ecosystem asking me
to relicense a smallish piece of code from GPLv3 to (L)GPLv2.
I'm not really interested in inciting a flamewar on the topic or
anything, but
On Mon, 2010-07-05 at 17:18 +0200, Vincent Untz wrote:
Le lundi 05 juillet 2010, à 10:48 -0400, Ryan Lortie a écrit :
hi Everyone,
I recently received an email from a company in our ecosystem asking me
to relicense a smallish piece of code from GPLv3 to (L)GPLv2.
I'm not really
hi Vincent,
On Mon, 2010-07-05 at 17:18 +0200, Vincent Untz wrote:
It's worth thinking really hard before moving to LGPLv3 (at least; not
sure about GPLv3): LGPLv3 is incompatible with GPLv2, according to the
FSF; that's a major issue, and, IMHO, this doesn't go well with our
philosophy of
38 matches
Mail list logo
