+1 assuming there's isn't any reason against. The dosemu site shows old
releases as stable, maybe we can update the version to 1.6 at least, 1.4 is
very old now.
On Sat, Sep 20, 2014 at 3:24 PM, Stas Sergeev <s...@list.ru> wrote:
> 20.09.2014 21:55, Eric Auer пишет:
> >> The only reason I didn't merge devel before, is because
> >> it has this commit:
> >>
> https://sourceforge.net/p/dosemu/code/ci/a1dff2a15698efc4f400812993ec819ea7091439/
> >> which Bart called a re-licensing. I of course do not
> >> want to do any re-licensing, but the intention of that
> >> change is to allow contributing under "GPLv2 or later".
> > Did any other DOSEMU experts have a strong opinion
> > about this? Or did people not care which of the two
> > variants should be used, except for Bart who prefers
> > the old variant?
> I am not sure Bart prefers the old variant.
> It could have been a simple misunderstanding, I don't
> know how can that be classified as re-licensing. He was
> very terse.
>
> > You could ask license expert Shane.
> I don't know that guy.
> And also there is too much of a context involved.
> For instance there was a change many years ago that
> added a dosemu-specific copyrights to all source files,
> even to those that had an explicit "GPLv2 or later" headings.
> This was explained as "something Linus did for linux",
> but I checked what Linus did - he only changed a readme,
> without touching any source files.
> So there is a lot of confusion on dosemu side, the
> poor COPYING file was changed and tweaked many times,
> including rather recently: I can see a differences even
> between 1.2.2 and 1.4.0! So I don't think someone from
> outside can dive into that mess without a good payment.
>
> >> We already have enough of such a code (all my code,
> >> and not only that), so that clause I removed, was
> >> invalidated long ago. There is simply no other way than
> >> to remove it.
> > Not sure about the context here...
> Me too.
> The original intention of that restriction was _probably_
> to restrict all the source code to GPLv2. At least, as I
> said, even the explicit "GPLv2 or later" headings were
> changed with the reference to COPYING.DOSEMU which
> states "GPLv2 only". I made sure we have enough of "GPLv2 or
> later" code _without_ a reference to COPYING.DOSEMU
> (because I don't trust it and am not sure it is valid for
> "GPLv2 or later" code to refer to it), and, as a side effect,
> removed all the code of the author of that exception, but
> of course this alone does not change anything.
> If this exception is removed however, GPL faq says
> it would be possible to re-license the whole package
> to "GPLv2 or later" but not to "GPLv3 or later" till some
> "GPLv2 only" code remains.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Slashdot TV. Video for Nerds. Stuff that Matters.
>
> http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=160591471&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
> _______________________________________________
> Dosemu-devel mailing list
> Dosemu-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dosemu-devel
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Slashdot TV. Video for Nerds. Stuff that Matters.
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=160591471&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
_______________________________________________
Dosemu-devel mailing list
Dosemu-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dosemu-devel
