22.07.2013 10:29, Eric W. Biederman пишет: > Stas Sergeev <s...@list.ru> writes: > >> 21.07.2013 20:09, solarflow99 пишет: >>> 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. :) > Hans did get upset that distributions were retarring his tarball and > making it impossible for people to verify that what he shipped was > actually what the distributions had, and took an interesting take on the > GPLv2. Hi Eric, this is not the main point of that discussion. Even though my proposal contains also what you are talking about: http://sourceforge.net/p/dosemu/code/ci/49870d19fd987a507a03130c4ddf1faccf27ac3b/ the main crux is this one: http://sourceforge.net/p/dosemu/code/ci/a1dff2a15698efc4f400812993ec819ea7091439/ which is an entirely different problem from disallowing the distributors to do things.
> Arguably Bart as the current maintainer is free to relax that part of > the interpretation. This would be nice too. We seem to have forgotten about this part of my proposal during the discussion. >> 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. > The fact that the GPLv3 has more restrictions and is not compatible > with the GPLv3 I find a royal pain. You meant GPLv2 in at least one instance above. :) I think it is incompatible intentionally, ie FSF always suggested to use "GPLv2 or later" to make everything compatible. People are free to stick to the "only" version of some license, opting themselves to stay incompatible with every further version. So IMHO this is not an FSF's fault, but the deliberate choise of whoever changed "or later" to "only". It is good that FSF gives such an option to people (it have to), but it is bad that they use it. > But it is very much the case that > if code is not marked GPLv2 or later the code is v2 only. Baring a > different licence being provided by the author. That's why in my proposal I have explicitly marked everything as "GPLv2 only" that didn't say otherwise. Fortunately I was smart enough 10 years ago to explicitly state "GPLv2 or later" on most of my code, and now I am trying to "recover" the parts that were neglected to mark explicitly. And there is already a problem that there is a one-liner fix from debian developer in my code, but I think maybe one-liners are not copyrightable... >> 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. > For a project as old as dosemu if we can't get out a release that > makes networking easy I can't see a change in licencing being realistic > or relevant. You have probably forgot how long ago the last release was made. :) There are many improvement even without the networking. For instance, x86_64 fixes (cpuemu) from Bart are very important as everyone uses x86_64 these days. As for networking, we'll get something here for sure. The question is only will Bart find the time for the release or not. :) Still it would be interesing to take a look into VDE or OpenVSwitch projects before making the decision on what we need with networking... Also, maybe I am underestimating the importance of such a things, but I wonder if it is really a crucial functionality to have. It is indeed a very nice one, have to be added (and we work on it in git), but nevertheless TAP already allows you to do all this and even more. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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
