On Thu, 25 Apr 2019 at 15:14, Pierre Labastie via lfs-dev < [email protected]> wrote:
> On 25/04/2019 11:54, Richard Melville via lfs-dev wrote: > > On Thu, 25 Apr 2019 at 07:49, Pierre Labastie via lfs-dev > > <[email protected] > > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > > On 25/04/2019 00:34, Richard Melville via lfs-dev wrote: > > > On Wed, 24 Apr 2019 at 18:19, Pierre Labastie via lfs-dev > > > <[email protected] > > <mailto:[email protected]> > > > <mailto:[email protected] > > <mailto:[email protected]>>> wrote: > > > > > > I've again modified jhalfs, in order to get rid of the GPLv2 > > license. > > > This license prevents anybody to use anything that is in > > this project, > > > in projects with more permissive licenses. I've obtained the > > agreement > > > of the other contributors to jhalfs, except Manuel Canales > > Esparcia, > > > who is unreachable, to change the license to MIT. > > > > > > Is that the Expat (MIT) licence or the X11 (MIT) licence? > > > > > > > Expat,I think... I took the license file from github. > > > > It does not have the paragraph, which is in the X11 license: > > ---- > > Except as contained in this notice, the name of the <copyright > > holders> shall > > not be used in advertising or otherwise to promote the sale, use > > or other > > dealings in this Software without prior written authorization from > the > > <copyright holders>. > > -- > > > > > > I was thinking that the Expat MIT licence would be compatible with > > Ken's GPLv2 farce analyser. > > > Point 2 of the GPLv2: > [...] > b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in > whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any > part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third > parties under the terms of this License. > [...] > Clearly, if some GPLv2 Program is included in another work, that whole > work should be licensed under the terms of GPLv2. > > In the reversed way, it is OK: some program licensed under the Expat > license, can be included into a work licensed under GPLv2. I think it's > what they mean with "compatible with GPL". > > I think this is also the reason why GLPv2 is not even compatible with > GPLv3, unless the copyright notice tells that the work "is licensed > under GPLv2 or, at the user convenience any later version". > Ok Pierre, thanks. I thought that it was worth a try :-( Richard
-- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
