22.07.2013 22:35, Bart Oldeman пишет: > On 22 July 2013 12:50, Eric W. Biederman wrote: >> The text of the GPLv2 does not grant permission to use code released >> under the GPLv2 under any other terms, including the terms of the GPLv3. >> >> dosemu relied upon the convention of a top level copying file for it's >> copyright licensing terms. >> >> The copyright licensing terms were the text of the GPLv2. >> >> The option of a later version was not given. The code base was >> exclusively under GPLv2. > It's a bit more subtle than that. In the very early days of dosemu no > copyright file was included (COPYING was missing until > 0.63.1.something in 1996), but those were the 'wild west' days and > people just assumed it was GPL. > Then at some point parts of the source code (notably the serial code > and VGA emulator, 1995) got the explicit "v2 or later" statement But, as I can see from the 1998's patch, the serial files do not carry the copyrights too... Where was it?
> But when Hans restricted to v2 in 1998, then it was unambiguous, from > then on all modifications are v2 only, unless otherwise indicated. How was the aforementioned serial and VGA code dealt with then? > Whether it is "intimate" is rather vague. I do not consider it > intimate (it's all going over interfaces documented in RBIL), so using > or distributing DOSEMU with any DOS, I see no problems with, much like > distributing the Linux kernel with some closed-source programs (which This may be fine, but AFAICS this is not what is written, because clause 5 explicitly calls it a "library linking", and a proprietary library, to be able to be distributed with GPLed software, needs a written exception about _distributing_, which is what clause 5 is not. So, while I agree with you, I do not agree with the clause 5... > So in that sense it is useful to clarify our intent (this is not an > exception like in the LGPL, purely clarifying intent like in the Linux > kernel); Do you agree that to make this true, we need to get rid of the "linking trick"? That's the only thing I really intended to do, although the best way to achieve it is IMHO to just remove it and forget. :) > I personally have no problem with "or later" because of clause 9 in > GPLv2 that restricts itself to be similar in spirit in later version. > But to relicense to "v2 or later" Stas needs permission (IMHO) from > all copyright holders of modification post the 1998 restriction by > Hans, or rewrite all this code. Could you please clarify if you call my proposal that changes only the _default_ license, a re-licensing? I changed all the files to explicitly state "GPLv2 only", so why do you think so? > (like I mentioned Hans told me "v2 or v3" was fine with him, Alberto's > simx86 was initially released under "2 or later", so that leaves only > you (Eric) and Clarence as major contributors to ask, with a bigger > number of smaller contributors). Thanks for this one, excellent point! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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
