Stas Sergeev <s...@list.ru> writes: > 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).
The need was people people had concerns. Screw the lawyers and the technicalities of the law. Maybe nothing needed to be said legally but saying something guaranteed people did not and do not have to worry about the issue. That is that clause is to counter FUD. I believe a fair chunk of it was following what Linus did with the Linux kernel as well. > 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. The FSF does not hold any copyright in dosemu and as such has no bearing on this conversation. > --- > 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 think dynamic linking is the only concern addressed in that clause. I can't see distribution as being confused with linking, unless it actually is linking. If you actually managed to link a proprietary DOS with dosemu then you probably have a derivative of dosemu in there somewhere and the terms of the GPLv2 apply. >> 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. But that is a real and valid concern. At least it was perhaps no one cares anymore. But if no one cares it is because of a handful of clauses like the one we are discussing in the kernel license and in dosemu. > 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. :) Frankly I think Hans did a fine job and you are playing arm chair lawyer in a most dangerous way. The net effect of your suggestions appears to be an addition of a lot of restrictions added to the distribution and use of dosemu that don't previously exist. Something the contributors to dosemu did not agree to. My goal at this point is primarily to give some historical knowledge. And most definitely nothing in what Hans did was considered controversial at the time or looked weird or wrong or dangerous to me. And frankly it doesn't look wrong now. Except as a code cleanup I don't see you raising any valid concerns at this point. And a code cleanup to licensing terms frankly adds a lot more confusion than it is worth. Unless there is an actual problem let's please concentrate on the code and getting out a release before the end of the decade. >> 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. Please use more precision when you use words like legality. I can't see how dosemu violates any legal statutes by itself. At worst you are arguing that the license terms of previous contributors were not followed. Probably the best practical defense that dosemu is in compliance with previous contributors is that no one has complained about what Hans did until now. And Hans did not hide his clarification of the GPL terms. I remember that patch going in to clarify and not having any problems with it at the time. Eric ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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
