21.09.2014 05:55, Bart Oldeman пишет: > Stas Sergeevwrote: > > Eric Auer wrote: > >> 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? > > > Eric, you can see other Eric's (Biederman) replies in the archives here: > https://www.mail-archive.com/dosemu-devel@lists.sourceforge.net/index.html#00333 > > I mostly agree with him, and he was involved in DOSEMU before me so > knows slightly more about that history before. (adding Eric to CC) The particular Eric's e-mail on that subject is this one: https://www.mail-archive.com/dosemu-devel@lists.sourceforge.net/msg00328.html He basically says that the right to use dosemu with proprietary progs needs to be _clarified_ (not granted, just clarified).
I agree with that and propose the simple clarification: --- Q: Can I run a proprietary software, including proprietary DOS, under dosemu? A: Yes! Q: Can I distribute dosemu with proprietary DOS or other proprietary software? A: No, but we suggest to distribute dosemu with FreeDOS and install the proprietary software separately. --- Is this good for clarification? No weird stuff about dynamic linking, GPLv2 etc. I asked Eric explicitly about a few things: https://www.mail-archive.com/dosemu-devel@lists.sourceforge.net/msg00329.html namely, is that clause validly states the reasons why dosemu should be licensed as "GPLv2 only" (3) and why does it _grants_ the right to use rather than to clarify that right (4). But, as you can see from here: https://www.mail-archive.com/dosemu-devel@lists.sourceforge.net/msg00334.html 3 and 4 were explicitly skipped (3 is not even quoted, 4 is not answered). So I can take only Eric's opinion that the _clarification_ should stay. The above example of clarification can be applied to devel if no one objects. Later I also asked why the files with explicit "GPLv2 or later" headings were changed, and this was not addressed as well. So what other points from Eric's mails we can consider? He also explains why the files without an explicit copyrights should be licensed as "GPLv2 only" and I agree: http://sourceforge.net/p/dosemu/code/ci/b0c0830292330e08df498063a78cb67c99a91017/ (this is just a proposal in a separate branch). So I think Eric's considerations were taken into account. Or have I missed some? > 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. > > > Changing from "GPLv2 only" to "GPLv2 or later" is a relicensing > (alternatively all GPLv2-only code needs to be rewritten like you wrote). Maybe, but this is not what I did. However, AFAIK this is a "light-weight" re-licensing that does not require rewriting the code or asking the copyright holders. Only re-licensing to "GPLv3 or later" will require this. > As to removing clause 5 and 6, their intent was just to clarify how > the main copyright holders of DOSEMU were interpreting the GPL. I > agree they are/were not written perfectly but the idea is just the > same as Linus' kernel COPYING header of Well, this is the most controversial statement from you and other dosemu developers involved, that is always re-occuring here, but my questions about it are always ignored. So lets try again. --- Linus says --- " NOTE! This copyright does *not* cover user programs that use kernel services by normal system calls - this is merely considered normal use of the kernel, and does *not* fall under the heading of "derived work". --- To me, Linus simply made it clear that the software that _uses_ linux kernel is not a derived work, and as such, does not fall under GPL. He basically protects the proprietary software _authors_ from someone else saying "hey, you use linux system calls, you include linux headers! Release under GPL!" I do not think his clarification had something to do with the linux kernel itself, either its use or its distribution. Now in dosemu, this somehow infers that: 1. dosemu should be licensed under "GPLv2 only", or otherwise it may be illegal to run proprietary DOS under it 2. we need to grant an explicit right to _use_ the DOS software under dosemu. IMHO this is total and complete misunderstanding of everything. But I may be wrong. As I said, the direct questions are always ignored. So now could you _please_ clarify how the below is similar to what Linus did: --- 5. The nature of DOSEMU requires the use of (ie "booting") a DOS, which may be proprietary. This could be interpreted as 'library linking' the DOS functions to DOSEMU (this view comes from interpreting more into the current version (2) of the GPL than is actually defined). 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. ============ === We grant the right to use a proprietary DOS together with DOSEMU. --- I see no similarities whatsoever. --- Linus continues --- 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. --- This is a different, and is also a very interesing part. And it was also taken to dosemu with a serious misunderstandings. Namely, "unless explicitly otherwise stated" was missed and the files with the explicit "GPLv2 or later" headings were changed. My question was and still is: what resemlance this mess could have with what Linus validly and properly did? > IANAL but I suspect that somebody can fork the Linux kernel and remove > that text just as you can fork dosemu (or you'd become the new > maintainer) and remove that text (or I can remove that text as still > maintainer, Before removing something, there is a need of an understanding. I do not claim the misunderstanding is on you side, it can be on my side just as well. But the point is that we (major contributors) need to get to a similar view before changing or removing anything. That's why I put all my proposals into a separate branch and am waiting for years before the simple questions are answered. :) Answering your statement above, my current thinking is that if I fork linux, I won't remove anything, but if I fork dosemu, I definitely will. I see ZERO similarities in what was done by Linus and what was done here. > Hans wrote me to that was ok, it's at my own legal risk of course). > In any case the intent of the old copyright holders can be traced back > from old versions in the highly unlikely case of any lawsuit just as > Linus' intent can be clearly traced back. OK, I tracked the intent of dosemu copyright holders to an explicit "GPLv2 or later" headings, but they were then obscured by the reference to the COPYING.DOSEMU that says "GPLv2 only". So tracking back didn't help much. > However nobody can relicense the kernel or DOSEMU from GPLv2 to "GPLv2 > or later" or "GPLv3" or "GPLv3 or later" without approval of all > copyright holders. But GPL faq disagree with you: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#AllCompatibility It is only not possible to re-license to "GPLv3 or later", but possible to "GPLv2 or later": --- 2: While you may release your project (either your original work and/or work that you received and modified) under GPLv2-or-later in this case, note that the other code you're using must remain under GPLv2 only. --- > *I* as maintainer think it does not hurt to clarify that we see DOSEMU > and DOS as separate independent works and that if somebody sells > DOSEMU and MSDOS on a CD I don't consider that copyright infringement > (as long as they make DOSEMU's source available). This is a completely different story. Lets not dive into that topic for now, or the discussion will became rusty again. It is perfectly fine to discuss also this, but right now we can't even merge devel because of the different views on the very simple questions. I am asking this new code contributors to ignore the COPYING.DOSEMU and add the normal GPL headings but this is not a normal development process. I want to be able to trust dosemu's licensing style, but its current state is IMHO far from what the one can trust. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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
