15.08.2013 17:17, Bart Oldeman пишет: > P.S. I'm sorry about the slowness regarding the COPYING.DOSEMU > language. it's just a hairy issue I don't want to rush (with limited > time already). There is a well-established practice of applying GPL, so I wonder what the problem is. Ah, well, the problem is clause 5, but, what Eric suggests about it (that it should stay), doesn't even look feasible. In particular, this: --- However, past discussions about the scope of 'library linking' with GPL code and the possibility that future versions of the GPL may define this issue in a more restrictive manner, made it necessary to restrict the DOSEMU copyright explicitly to version 2 of the GPL. --- should IMO apply to _all_ the code in dosemu, because all of it is involved in this "library linking mess". But the reality is that we already have a lot of "GPLv2 or later" code all around, and I don't understand how that statement can co-exist with any.
In fact, as Bart already pointed, there was a lot of the "GPLv2 or later" code even before that clause 5 was added (serial, cpuemu, video etc). For that code, the "dosemu disclaimer" was added right on top of the "GPLv2 or later" banner! I wonder if this was a valid thing to do. You can't have a "GPLv2 only" and "GPLv2 or later" together in a same files, or can you? If this was impossible, then perhaps the patch in question can be considered invalid and undone, making dosemu code "GPLv2 or later" except that was contributed after that patch. Which would match what Bart already suggested in the prev posting (that we need to contact only those who contributed after that patch, to have a full re-licensing). Of course, instead of reverting the patch, it can be fixed on a case-by-case basis, to make sure no single file contains both "v2 or later" and "v2 only" copyrights, but if this is done, it would be much harder to find the reason to revert that patch in future. :) While this patch is usually compared to the one of Linus, let me debunk that thinking. AFAIK Linus didn't touch any files at all, he only added this to COPYING: --- Also note that the only valid version of the GPL as far as the kernel is concerned is _this_ particular version of the license (ie v2, not v2.2 or v3.x or whatever), unless explicitly otherwise stated. --- While the patch that we have, doesn't add the "unless explicitly otherwise stated" phrase, and in fact changes the files that had explicitly otherwise stated. Still any similarity to the Linus's patch? Just an ideas to consider. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Get 100% visibility into Java/.NET code with AppDynamics Lite! It's a free troubleshooting tool designed for production. Get down to code-level detail for bottlenecks, with <2% overhead. Download for free and get started troubleshooting in minutes. http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=48897031&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk _______________________________________________ Dosemu-devel mailing list Dosemu-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dosemu-devel
