* Jari Häkkinen -- Wednesday 06 April 2011:
The GPL ideology is to keep the or later clause.
I'm not much into ideologies. I consider both GPLv2 and GPLv3
acceptable. But I don't intend to ever (again) license anything
with an or later clause. This is signing a contract without
reading it first!
On Fri, 8 Apr 2011 10:42:38 +0200, Melchior wrote in message
201104081042.39...@rk-nord.at:
* Jari Häkkinen -- Wednesday 06 April 2011:
The GPL ideology is to keep the or later clause.
I'm not much into ideologies. I consider both GPLv2 and GPLv3
acceptable. But I don't intend to ever
Am Freitag, den 08.04.2011, 10:42 +0200 schrieb Melchior FRANZ:
And I don't consider the or later clause to be in the spirit
of the GPL at all. (In the spirit of the FSF, yes.) Because an
or later clause allows a fork under a license that is not
compatible with what the original work is
* kreuzritter2000 -- Friday 08 April 2011:
That's the reason why the or later clause is important, it can protect
your intentions in the future.
Or it can be completely against my intentions. Hard to say before I read
the text of the GPLv4, GPLv5 etc. I don't need a master who protects my
Am Freitag, den 08.04.2011, 14:21 +0200 schrieb Melchior FRANZ:
* kreuzritter2000 -- Friday 08 April 2011:
That's the reason why the or later clause is important, it can protect
your intentions in the future.
Or it can be completely against my intentions. Hard to say before I read
the
Am 04.04.11 12:43, schrieb HB-GRAL:
Hi all
I try to repeat my questions (and at least today I don’t like
no-where-going-just-www-linking answers with directives _read_, _do_,
_what_do_you_mean_ and all this ;o), I am not in that mood, sorry Arnt,
don’t take it personal):
- Is fgdata
On Wed, 06 Apr 2011 14:08:49 +0200, HB-GRAL wrote in message
4d9c57d1.4090...@sablonier.ch:
Am 04.04.11 12:43, schrieb HB-GRAL:
Hi all
I try to repeat my questions (and at least today I don’t like
no-where-going-just-www-linking answers with directives _read_, _do_,
On 2011-04-06 14.08, HB-GRAL wrote:
- Do other contributors of the origin repo have the right to change my
origin licence assignment from GPLv2 to GPLv3, when they just pull and
push the same code? (I really think: No.)
I think anyone has the right to redistribute the code under GPLv3 if
On Tue, 2011-04-05 at 01:59 +0200, kreuzritter2000 wrote:
Am Montag, den 04.04.2011, 19:01 +0200 schrieb Erik Hofman:
ha mAa GPL2 or later, which doesn't mean the license of the version
in the
base package can be changed to GPL3 without my permission.
Erik
No, this is exactly
On Tue, 05 Apr 2011 09:19:09 +0200, Erik wrote in message
1301987949.1641.2.camel@Raptor:
On Tue, 2011-04-05 at 01:59 +0200, kreuzritter2000 wrote:
Am Montag, den 04.04.2011, 19:01 +0200 schrieb Erik Hofman:
ha mAa GPL2 or later, which doesn't mean the license of
the version in the
On Tue, 2011-04-05 at 10:13 +0200, Arnt Karlsen wrote:
..I'm guessing you meant to say your fokker100 is going to stay
under the same license as the rest of the base package, now it's
GPLv2-and-later, later it may be GPLv3, GPLv3.1, GPLv4 etc as it
is developed and forked etc to fit new FG
Am Dienstag, den 05.04.2011, 09:19 +0200 schrieb Erik Hofman:
On Tue, 2011-04-05 at 01:59 +0200, kreuzritter2000 wrote:
Am Montag, den 04.04.2011, 19:01 +0200 schrieb Erik Hofman:
ha mAa GPL2 or later, which doesn't mean the license of the version
in the
base package can be
On Tue, 2011-04-05 at 12:31 +0200, kreuzritter2000 wrote:
No, the or in the passus GPLv2 or later is a right to choose.
Someone who gets the code can give it away under the terms of the GPLv2,
but he does not need to do this, when there is a GPLv3 or later license
available.
He can give it
On Tue, 05 Apr 2011 13:04:03 +0200, Erik wrote in message
1302001443.32253.2.camel@Raptor:
On Tue, 2011-04-05 at 12:31 +0200, kreuzritter2000 wrote:
No, the or in the passus GPLv2 or later is a right to choose.
Someone who gets the code can give it away under the terms of the
GPLv2, but
Am Dienstag, den 05.04.2011, 13:04 +0200 schrieb Erik Hofman:
On Tue, 2011-04-05 at 12:31 +0200, kreuzritter2000 wrote:
No, the or in the passus GPLv2 or later is a right to choose.
Someone who gets the code can give it away under the terms of the GPLv2,
but he does not need to do this,
On Tue, 2011-04-05 at 13:34 +0200, Arnt Karlsen wrote:
..and we just agreed that my guess on your GPLv2-and-later
license is in your own words Hmm, fair enough., which
hopefully is what you meant to do, when you put your work
into FG-base.
Look if the license states that one can apply a
On Tue, 2011-04-05 at 14:35 +0200, kreuzritter2000 wrote:
No the base package belongs to the FG community and you commited your
work under their GPLv2 or later conditions.
If the FG community decides to switch to GPLv3 one day, the community
can do this without asking you for permission.
@lists.sourceforge.net
Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2011 14:54:40 +0200
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Is FlightGear GPL2 and later or GPL2 only?
On Tue, 2011-04-05 at 14:35 +0200, kreuzritter2000 wrote:
No the base package belongs to the FG community and you commited your
work under their GPLv2 or later
Am 05.04.11 17:00, schrieb TDO_Brandano -:
This does not supercede the original license, it effectively means a fork
under a new licence. The GPL v2 on the original remains in effect, but
changes on the GPLv3 versions would be covered by the GPLv3 terms.
Alessandro
Wiki and flightgear.org
Hi Yves,
HB-GRAL wrote:
Maybe I am wrong at all, sorry for the confusion. I am just a small and
non-important contributor who wants to do licence things how it has to
be done.
I'm convinced that being careful about contributor's licenses is a core
requirement in a world where The
* TDO_Brandano - -- Tuesday 05 April 2011:
The terms of the unmodified GPL v2 allow the relicencing by 3rd
parties with subsequent licences
[citation:]
| either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version.
Caution: this is *not* part of the GPLv2. It's *below* the line
On Tue, 05 Apr 2011 14:53:22 +0200, Erik wrote in message
1302008002.6099.0.camel@Raptor:
On Tue, 2011-04-05 at 13:34 +0200, Arnt Karlsen wrote:
..and we just agreed that my guess on your GPLv2-and-later
license is in your own words Hmm, fair enough., which
hopefully is what you meant
On Tue, 05 Apr 2011 14:54:40 +0200, Erik wrote in message
1302008080.6099.1.camel@Raptor:
On Tue, 2011-04-05 at 14:35 +0200, kreuzritter2000 wrote:
No the base package belongs to the FG community and you commited
your work under their GPLv2 or later conditions.
If the FG community
On Tue, 5 Apr 2011 21:14:03 +0200, Melchior wrote in message
201104052114.04...@rk-nord.at:
* TDO_Brandano - -- Tuesday 05 April 2011:
The terms of the unmodified GPL v2 allow the relicencing by 3rd
parties with subsequent licences
[citation:]
| either version 2 of the License, or (at
* Arnt Karlsen -- Tuesday 05 April 2011:
On Tue, 5 Apr 2011 21:14:03 +0200, Melchior wrote in message
Caution: this is *not* part of the GPLv2. It's *below* the line
stating END OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS, and is just meant as an
*example* for how (the FSF would like us) to apply the GPLv2.
Hi all
While reading all the licence or license files distributed with fgdata I
have to ask a small question here, and I apologize in advance to open a
new licence thread, I am tired of this kind of threads myself:
- Is FlightGear fgdata distributed under GPL2 and later or GPL2 only ?
I found
On Mon, 2011-04-04 at 12:43 +0200, HB-GRAL wrote:
Hi all
While reading all the licence or license files distributed with fgdata I
have to ask a small question here, and I apologize in advance to open a
new licence thread, I am tired of this kind of threads myself:
Normally the licenses
On Mon, 04 Apr 2011 12:58:06 +0200, Erik wrote in message
1301914686.991.1.camel@Raptor:
On Mon, 2011-04-04 at 12:43 +0200, HB-GRAL wrote:
Hi all
While reading all the licence or license files distributed with
fgdata I have to ask a small question here, and I apologize in
advance to
On Mon, 4 Apr 2011 17:53:16 +0200
Arnt Karlsen a...@c2i.net wrote:
- Mig15 (not compatible to GPL2 at all)
- Fokker100 (GPL3, could not be used with GPL2 only)
The Fokker 100 was never released under the GPL3 by me so it's still
GPL2. If there's a license stating otherwise it's wrong.
Am 04.04.11 19:01, schrieb Erik Hofman:
On Mon, 4 Apr 2011 17:53:16 +0200
Arnt Karlsena...@c2i.net wrote:
- Mig15 (not compatible to GPL2 at all)
- Fokker100 (GPL3, could not be used with GPL2 only)
The Fokker 100 was never released under the GPL3 by me so it's still
GPL2. If there's a
Am 04.04.11 23:35, schrieb HB-GRAL:
Am 04.04.11 19:01, schrieb Erik Hofman:
On Mon, 4 Apr 2011 17:53:16 +0200
Arnt Karlsena...@c2i.net wrote:
- Mig15 (not compatible to GPL2 at all)
- Fokker100 (GPL3, could not be used with GPL2 only)
The Fokker 100 was never released under the GPL3 by me
On Mon, 04 Apr 2011 23:48:11 +0200, HB-GRAL wrote in message
4d9a3c9b.3090...@sablonier.ch:
Am 04.04.11 23:35, schrieb HB-GRAL:
Am 04.04.11 19:01, schrieb Erik Hofman:
On Mon, 4 Apr 2011 17:53:16 +0200
Arnt Karlsena...@c2i.net wrote:
- Mig15 (not compatible to GPL2 at all)
-
Am 05.04.11 00:36, schrieb Arnt Karlsen:
On Mon, 04 Apr 2011 23:48:11 +0200, HB-GRAL wrote in message
4d9a3c9b.3090...@sablonier.ch:
Am 04.04.11 23:35, schrieb HB-GRAL:
Am 04.04.11 19:01, schrieb Erik Hofman:
On Mon, 4 Apr 2011 17:53:16 +0200
Arnt Karlsena...@c2i.netwrote:
- Mig15
Am Montag, den 04.04.2011, 19:01 +0200 schrieb Erik Hofman:
On Mon, 4 Apr 2011 17:53:16 +0200
Arnt Karlsen a...@c2i.net wrote:
- Mig15 (not compatible to GPL2 at all)
- Fokker100 (GPL3, could not be used with GPL2 only)
The Fokker 100 was never released under the GPL3 by me so it's
34 matches
Mail list logo
