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.
With the attached patch the Eric's opinion about a
clarification, should be addressed. There is no problem
if the clarification should stay. I am going to put that to devel.
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
" 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".
It is important to note that Linus here is talking about the
program itself, not about the program+kernel combination.
He says the program is not a "derived work", period.
Dosemu, instead, is saying something about a combination
of DOS prog+dosemu, and says that "We grant the right to
use a proprietary DOS together with DOSEMU". Not to repeat
that this is a nonsense, this has nothing to do with what
Linus said.
Also, do you really find sane the statements like this in something
that pretends to have the legal meaning:
---
this view comes from interpreting more
into the current version (2) of the GPL than is actually defined
---
Is this a joke? Since when we started to interpret the legal
documents over than that was written?
Or this:
---
However, recent 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, make it necessary to
restrict
---
Who have seen these discussions? Dosemu was being developed
under closed doors these times, with private MLs, private IRC channels.
Referring to some private discussions that no one can read and
evaluate, is not only invalid but is also impolite. We now only have
the Eric's word that these discussions actually took place... but
this is not enough for sure.
So I am not _asking_ you to remove that, its pretty much a matter
of understanding on either side. And if my understanding is valid,
then it should be removed pretty much automatically rather than
because I ask to do so.
diff --git a/COPYING.DOSEMU b/COPYING.DOSEMU
index 7878e0f..60f6011 100644
--- a/COPYING.DOSEMU
+++ b/COPYING.DOSEMU
@@ -45,6 +45,9 @@
the DOSEMU distribution or any derivative work. This file and
the GPL in the file COPYING must not be separated.
+6. There are no restrictions to run any (proprietary or free) DOS software
+ under dosemu, unless the license of that software says otherwise.
+
The copyrights referred to in clause 3 are from:
--- The Mach DOS Emulator
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meet PCI DSS 3.0 Compliance Requirements with EventLog Analyzer
Achieve PCI DSS 3.0 Compliant Status with Out-of-the-box PCI DSS Reports
Are you Audit-Ready for PCI DSS 3.0 Compliance? Download White paper
Comply to PCI DSS 3.0 Requirement 10 and 11.5 with EventLog Analyzer
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=154622311&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
_______________________________________________
Dosemu-devel mailing list
Dosemu-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dosemu-devel
