ok, I don't disagree. Also, I read on the FSF site one way to deal with
this kind of problem was to say something like "GPL 3 and any future
version"
On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 1:28 PM, Stas Sergeev <s...@list.ru> wrote:
> 21.07.2013 20:09, solarflow99 пишет:
>
>> On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 4:21 AM, Stas Sergeev <s...@list.ru <mailto:
>> s...@list.ru>> wrote:
>>
>> 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. :)
>>
>>
>>
>> The closest thing to a problem I ever had was with the freedos binaries
>> being included together, thats why dosemu couldn't get into fedora.
>>
> This AFAIK boils down to the fact that FreeDOS cannot
> be compiled inside the fedora environment.
> By the way, are there any updates on this?
> There are now the shiny new things like llvm/clang,
> and maybe they can handle the realmode code?
> Does anyone know?
>
> One thing I have not seen yet is the necessity to change licensing,
>>
> Please read Bart's e-mail more carefully then. :)
> He pointed to the notable example,
>
> http://pascalek.pers.pl/en/**propage/samba4dosemu-**introduction<http://pascalek.pers.pl/en/propage/samba4dosemu-introduction>
>
> Which also means (in my eyes at least) the unbiased manner
> of the discussion.
>
> I like gpl 3 too, if gpl3 existed long ago dosemu probably would have
>> used it. But it would be a shame to drag things down over licensing.
>>
> I don't think anything can be dragged down this time.
> Things have changed. Firstly, the discussion now happens
> in a public ML, instead of an IRC as it was 10 years ago.
> Secondly, there is now the Git, which allows us to _look_
> into the proposed things, changing them quickly etc, while
> in the past we had to argue without much of a demonstration
> of our ideas, and the misunderstandings ensued.
> And thirdly, there is no more permanent disagreement
> between me and Bart on the code simplicity vs compatibility. :)
> Simplicity won, compatibility (with ancient linux environments) died.
> My goal is to simply resolve the misunderstandings that
> are all there in the COPYING.DOSEMU. This is a very bad
> place for misunderstandings IMHO. :) Considering the dire
> consequences of these misunderstandings, like the "GPLv2
> only" instead of "GPLv2 or later", it IMHO really needs to be
> resolved once and for all.
> Aside from resolving the misunderstanding, of couse an
> extra steps can be done, like asking people about relicensing
> etc, but for now just removing the misunderstandings would
> be already a big achievement.
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
