Hi, thanks for getting involved into this.
Lets discuss it a little more then. My intention here
is NOT to push such a changes one way or another -
that's what I care the least. BUT, it is very important
to do the good research on that subject and get that
question resolved properly once and for all. I feel it
is all currently messed up, which is not good.
So I invite everyone to comment on that subject,
even if you have not contributed much. :)
21.07.2013 06:28, Bart Oldeman пишет:
> On 20 July 2013 17:23, Stas Sergeev wrote:
>>> Any objections to these proposals?
>> No visible objections - pushed to devel. :)
> I'm sorry for the lateness (I spent some time researching this but
> hadn't gotten around writing it) but I object to removing the clause
> (although perhaps it should be clarified). It may be a bit unclear in
> that it mixes various thing, but all it wants to say is very similar
> to the note in the Linux kernel COPYING:
>
> NOTE! This copyright does *not* cover user programs that use kernel
> services by normal system calls - this is merely considered normal use
> of the kernel, and does *not* fall under the heading of "derived work".
>
> which would translate for DOSEMU to:
>
> NOTE! This copyright does *not* cover DOS and DOS programs that interface
> with DOSEMU through software interrupts and other services - this is
> merely considered normal use of DOSEMU, and does *not* fall under the
> heading of "derived work".
Yes, that would be a sane wording, BUT:
> so I don't consider it a change of the license, merely saying, "if you
> distribute DOSEMU with some proprietory DOS and/or DOS program, we
> won't sue you, because we think it is 'mere aggregation'".
I disagree with this, because this is simply not what was
written. And what was written is this:
---
We grant the right to use a proprietary DOS together with DOSEMU.
---
Please note the word "use" here, compared to the word
"distribute" in what you have written.
So, while what you wrote may be correct, it have nothing
to do with the paragraph in question, because it was talking
about the use, not distribute. That's why I think it should be
removed completely.
Later you can add your notice about distributing, BUT, why
would you? Who distributes dosemu with non-free DOS, and
why should he? Why would we grant him such a right? I
personally don't want my code to be distributed with the
non-free DOS, so, unless there is a strong reason for that,
I would object to copyright my code under such conditions.
You may want to say that this was _already_ written, but
really it wasn't, or at least I have never seen such a clause
about the distribution. Which means you probably can't add it.
But I'd like to hear the reason that makes you think we should
ever allow distributing dosemu with non-free DOS.
> Now the GPLv2 restriction, Hans Lermen was free to do that, for any
> reason, and he states that reason there.
I still insist that the stated reason was invalid: you can't grant
an additional permissions about _use_ because any use is allowed.
But you are right that what was done is done, and so the only
thing I want to do now, is to make that mistake not to spread
any further. But of course all the old code remains "GPLv2 only",
which is unfortunate but true.
> But the simpler
>
> " Also note that the only valid version of the GPL as far as the kernel
> is concerned is _this_ particular version of the license (ie v2, not
> v2.2 or v3.x or whatever), unless explicitly otherwise stated."
>
> as also in the Linux kernel, has the same effect.
I think my proposals respect that effect. I added the "GPLv2 only"
headings to all the old files, so what are your concerns about my
change?
>> I've also added the "GPLv2 or later" heading to the files
>> that are authored by me and have not yet had that
>> heading (most of them already had it from the beginning).
> Yes, you are free to do that (and it's ok with me for files that were
> also modified by myself, for I personally have no issues with "2 or
> later", we just need to respect all copyright holders).
Thanks. I don't think there were other contributors to my code.
Oh well, Margaritta from debian have contributed a small fix to
smalloc. :) IMHO the one-liners are not copyrightable... just IMHO.
If you object to this, I'll have to write to Margaritta. That would be
the lesson for me, what happens when you "forget" to add the
license on your code.
>> I'd like to start releasing my dosemu-related code under
>> GPLv3, and the fact that I can't, makes me a bit upset.
> You can do that, but you'd have to rewrite from scratch all the rest
> of DOSEMU under GPLv3, or ask the copyright holders if it's ok.
For now I am not going to take any actions in that direction.
But really, it might be possible, because there are the existing
practices of such relicensing, that were executed by the projects
much bigger than dosemu. IIRC mozilla and wine went through
that. The idea was IIRC (may be mistaken here, need to re-check)
that you send an e-mail to ML and CC _all_ the contributors, but
if the _minor_ contributors do not reply, they simply get ignored
with the ability for them to complain later. Major contributors are
much fewer and they are usualy available to reply.
> The GPLv3 question came up before: there is this project
> http://pascalek.pers.pl/en/propage/samba4dosemu-introduction
> which interfaces DOSEMU with Samba4 which is GPLv3, so it is not compatible.
Ouch!!! And this is what we miss just because of the mistake
done by the programmer that started to write the license exceptions
without consulting with the lawer (and perhaps without even
asking at ML)...
> Hans Lermen contacted me in 2009 because of his detoriating health so
Hope he goes well!
> I could take over the dosemu.org domain name. Before it was too late I
> asked Hans Lermen a few years ago if he was ok in case I would have
> time to do something with Samba and GPLv3, and for his code he (now
> that we know what is in GPLv3) did not object to GPLv3, but did object
> to the "or later" clause.
What is "his" code at that time? IIRC I replaced most of the code
that was explicitly copyrighted by him, with the "GPLv2 or later"
code of my own 10 years ago. Of course I can't do that for every
small fixes he ever did, but do we still have a major pieces of code
with his copyrights? I have to admit that this time I won't start
reimplementing his code if it is still there, I don't have time for that.
>> As far as I understand from the FSF docs, it seems the
>> "GPLv2 only" project can be released under "GPLv2 or later"
>> without any problems, BUT, the GPLv3 contributions
>> will still be impossible till some "GPLv2 only" code remains.
> Code that is copyrighted by you can be released under any license.
> DOSEMU as a whole has to stay GPLv2-only until all files are marked
> with the "or later" clause, or have some other compatible license.
>
> A "GPLv2 only" project can definitely NOT be released under "GPLv2 or
> later" without any problems (similarly you cannot fork the Linux
> kernel or Git and make it "GPLv2 or later").
But that contradicts with the GPL faq, or at least with my reading of
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#AllCompatibility
What makes you think so? This is a key question probably.
My understanding is that "GPLv2 or later" is fine, and only
translating the GPL3 requires to remove all the "GPLv2 only"
code first.
>> In the separate "copying" branch I replaced all the references
>> to COPYING.DOSEMU with the explicit "GPLv2 only" heading,
>> and then replaced the "GPLv2 only" with "GPLv2 or later" text
>> in COPYING.DOSEMU itself, so that at least the newly contributed
>> code can be "GPLv2 or later".
>> Any objections to this?
> I wouldn't do it this way -- individual files can say "2 or later", "2
> or 3", "2 only", no problem, as long as all copyright holders agree.
Are you OK with at least the part of the change where I
simply added the "GPLv2 only" heading explicitly to the files
that were previously referring to COPYING.DOSEMU?
If so, I'll merge that to master and we'll continue to discuss
only the COPYING.DOSEMU part.
> But I'd like to have COPYING.DOSEMU reflect "the work as a whole",
> which as the FAQ you quoted says of "the work as a whole (any
> combination of both your project and the other code) can only be
> conveyed under the terms of GPLv2", because this is what is
> distributed with binaries.
Right.
I tried to address that concern with this change:
http://sourceforge.net/p/dosemu/code/ci/dd3fecb6b8a40107d7177c1893fe5b661241ea1b/
Let me know if you find it sufficient.
BTW, IMHO, this part of COPYING.DOSEMU:
---
Every co-ordinator passes on the right to represent to his successor.
---
is a bit unethical, is not in line with the common practice,
and a clear failure of the democrathy. :)) But yes, I know
it wasn't you who wrote that. Not that I care, but such a
sentences make no more than a smile. :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
See everything from the browser to the database with AppDynamics
Get end-to-end visibility with application monitoring from AppDynamics
Isolate bottlenecks and diagnose root cause in seconds.
Start your free trial of AppDynamics Pro today!
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=48808831&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
_______________________________________________
Dosemu-devel mailing list
Dosemu-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dosemu-devel
