22.07.2013 12:49, Eric W. Biederman пишет: > Clause 5 is definitely needed as a clarification. > > The essence of clause 5 is that if your have a weird lawyer that > interprets the GPL this way you are still fine, because we the authors > explicitly say it is not a problem. > > Use of a program is not always allowed. You have to make a copy of a > program to use it, Well even if getting a copy somehow falls under the terms of "distributing" (could you please point to any proofs of this), it still doesn't explain why you need to give the _use_ permission. That would still be the distributing permission that will cover even the weirdest case of making a copy (if such a case exists at all). OTOH FSF is very clear on the way the exceptions should be granted and why: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#GPLIncompatibleLibs If they say something about the exceptions for the _use_, then I haven't seen that, and would you please give me an URL. --- You may copy and distribute such a system following the terms of the GNU GPL for [name of your program] and the licenses of the other code concerned{, provided that you include the source code of that other code when and as the GNU GPL requires distribution of source code}. --- Seemingly nothing about the use. On the other hand, our clause 5 does _not_ give the permission to distribute! Only use. How would you deal with this? Blindly adding the word "distribute" and be done? :) Bart suggested that, but I'd like to object.
> I don't know how old this text is but unless it is recent it should > stand. I think it can stay only if it is clarified that: 1. It does _not_ have anything to do with distributing, just with the use. 2. It does not rely on strange things like "booting DOS is similar to linking with the library", please. 3. It is not the reason to use "GPLv2 only" or anything else. 4. It is not an exception or addition - just a clarification that any (or such) use is allowed. If you agree with the above, you'd probably also suggest a proper wording for this. :) I really don't see the reason to keep it, but if you come up with the wording that looks harmless... And please note that while you are not a lawyer, it may be better to not do this. :) >> 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 > This is exactly the FSF's fault. The GPLv3 could simply have been a > clarification in wording. The FSF produced a GPLv3 that is less > permissive and fewer people are willing to adopt it, which in turn > reduced the value of the GPL by causing license fragmentation. AfAIK the goals were to fight tivoization and patents. If you fight something, you add restrictions. I haven't yet read it entirely, but I like the way they fight the tivoization: they simply require you to add tools and cryptokeys that will allow you to reflash your tivo boxen. Doesn't even look like a restriction to me. :) Now there are the valid cases when someone (tivo) would like to say "I want GPLv2-only code in my project and never GPLv3", and this is what FSF allowed by making them incompatible: no one will add the GPLv3 code to the tivoized projects. OTOH if someone (like me here) says "hey, we have a GPLv2-only code, but I'd like to contribute under GPLv3" - this is insane by itself, because, if GPL3 is possible at all (no intentions for tivoization), then there should have been no "GPLv2-only" code at first place, or it was taken from the tivoized projects, which is not good (by the FSF's measures). Thats why I've also raised this point: http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/message.php?msg_id=31199955 What would be you take on this one? IANAL. It is just my understanding of things. >> 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. > No. The FSF has not proved as untrustworthy as some have feared but > they have proved they make strange weird choices that are inappropriate > for some application domains. The GPLv3 seems to suffer from second > system effect pretty badly. While completely irrelevant to this discussion, I'd like to read more about this - any pointers? I came to like GPLv3, even though admittedly I've read only part of it. If it hampers someone, it gotta be the hardware manufacturers, so why do we care? > I can just about understand the GPLv2 the GPLv3 is lost in insane > legalease and weird restrictions. > > I very much admire the purity of stance of the FSF but it is dangerous > to follow the path they chart blindly. IIRC they were heavily criticised this way when they released the first drafts. They then had to employ the public discussions and votings, and the things have changed. Linus said "OK", so why do we care? :)) > The point was simply that dosemu does not have timely releases, > and that in general there is very little energy put into the project at > this point. The code is 20+ years old at this point, that is a lot of > history and a lot of developers to talk to. The real re-licensing is probably not planned... At least it shouldn't be me anyway, it should be Bart to do that work. I can't and won't. BUT, it looks like there is a _huge_ amount of things to resolve first, and the result is completely unpredictable. Eg I wonder whether we can accept that "GPLv2 and later" to "GPLv2 only" transfer as legal at all. I don't know yet who have done it, I think Hans Lermen did, but Bart set up a historical branch which will give us much more material to study. :) For a moment I think dosemu is currently illegal at all... Would be nice to prove wrong though. > On the flip side making a release that works on x86_64 is probably > crucial to keeping things going. The previous release also did, but was very buggy on that. Agreed. It is only a matter of Bart finding a time for that work. :) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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
