On 9/6/05, Attila Kinali <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Moin
>
> On Mon, 5 Sep 2005 20:14:11 -0400
> Timothy Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > > (1) This Work is licensed under LGPL 2.0. You have the right to use and
> > > > modify this Work, as long as you publish your changes to the Work.
> > >
> > > Not LGPL 2.0 or newer?
> >
> > Ok, why not. Anyone know what that could entail? Linux is licensed
> > only under 2.0. But honestly, I don't care, as long as the GPL
> > retains it viral qualities and it and the LGPL retain the requirement
> > to publish changes.
> >
> > I made the change.
>
> It depends what you want. By saying that also newer (L)GPL
> variants can be used, you give RMS some power over the
> code that you cannot control. This is the reason why
> a lot of projects use explicitly only one version of the (L)GPL.
Well, honestly, it doesn't matter. I need the dual license so I can
relicense the design. But when it's used as an open source design,
people need to have the freedom to use it as they see fit. As long as
the GPL is defined as not allowing a release without the full source
code, I'm happy with it. Given the emails I've exchanged with RMS,
I'm sure he is and always will remain steadfastly opposed to software
releases without source code. Mind you, if the GPL becomes much less
viral, that may pose a problem, but by that point, I'll have moved
onto another OGA with a time-delay GPL and won't care about the first
as much (it'll still sell, and we can also fab community variants).
>
>
> > I was trying to collect patches, modifications, extensions, changes,
> > and anything else together and give them all one name by which they
> > are referred to later. Should I perhaps refer to them all as
> > "changes"?
>
> I would rather use the term "modifications"
I used "Changes". Should I go back and change it? I could use the
term "Blick", as long as it was clear what I meant. :)
> > (1) This Work is licensed under LGPL 2.0 or newer. You have the right to
> > use and modify this Work, as long as you publish your changes to the Work.
>
> The meaning of "Work" should be clarified. Ie what is it about,
> what is included and what not.
> There might be also a simple reference to the GPL.
I can trim it down. And the "Work" is the contents of the file the
comment is in.
How about this:
(1) This Work is licensed under LGPL 2.0 or newer. You have the right to
use and modify this Work (the document/source code containing this notice),
as long as you publish your changes to the Work.
> > (2) This Work is also licensed as a proprietary work, all rights
> > belonging to Traversal Technology. Traversal Technology may use this
> > Work under those terms and has the right to publish, license, and sell
> > this Work and derivative works as they see fit. To remove these rights,
> > you must remove this clause.
> >
> > (3) Use of this Work without clause (2) forfeits the right to use any
> > trademarks owned by Traversal Technology, the Open Graphics Project, or
> > related organizations.
> >
> > (4) Patches, modifications, and extensions (collectively, "Changes")
> > to this Work that are submitted to the Open Graphics Project, the Open
> > Graphics Mailing List, directly to Traversal Technology, or to an agent
> > thereof must be SIGNED by the author of said Change, granting
> > Traversal Technology "rights to use" under clause (2), as well as
> > clause (1).
> > Unsigned Changes will be ignored.
>
>
> > (5) Changes committed directly to an officially recognized source code
> > repository are signed implicitly. Those who have write access to such
> > a repository and who commit Changes to that repository grant rights to
> > Traversal Technology under clause (2), as well as clause (1), by virtue
> > of having write access and choosing to submit Changes.
> >
> > (6) It is the responsibility of the submitter of a Change to ensure that
> > they have the right to do so and that they have necessary permissions
> > from any other contributors or third parties.
>
> Here it is not exactly clear what "submitter" means, maybe this
> should be changed to something like "submitter of a modification
> to the OpenGraphics Project"
I saw "submitter of a Change", with the capitalized Change as being a
unit that meant that. But I am not a lawyer. :)
>
> > (7) Traversal Technology does not require an exclusive license to your
> > work. You retain the right to use the contents of your Changes, and you
> > may retain copyright to your Changes. Clauses (1) through (6) still
> > apply. For special situations, you are encouraged to add comments to the
> > "contributions" section of this Work, indicating the nature of your
> > Change.
>
> What do you mean by "special situations" ? How about additions to the
> license that restrict the clauses above ? How about modifications to
> the license in general ?
Or the whim of the submitter, or if it's a particularly large
addition, etc. People should be allowed credit for their work, but if
they make some tiny bug fix and don't care, that's up to them.
How about this:
(7) Traversal Technology does not require an exclusive license to your
work. You retain the right to use the contents of your Changes, and you
may retain copyright to your Changes. Clauses (1) through (6) still
apply. >>At your discretion<<, you are encouraged to add comments to the
"contributions" section of this Work, indicating the nature of your
Change.
>
> Maybe there should be also a mentioning of "derivative works",
> as they are a "Work" of their own.
How so?
I'm hoping that someone jerk doesn't try to test this in court or
something. This is intended to be a statement of my intent, and I
hope people will honor it. I guess you can't expect everyone to be
honorable. I wonder how precise I need to be with this.
>
> IMHO there should be also a clause, as we are dealing with
> hardware, that any produced product shall also count as binary
> as an addition to section 3 of the GPL.
Good idea. How's this? Miss anything important?
(7) An implementation of this Work that is considered analogous to a
"binary distribution" is defined as any form that is not easily
readable by humans ("non-preferred"), which includes, but is not
limited to: Fixed-function IC (e.g. ASIC), fixed-function IC masks
or other fabrication intermediate step, variable-function IC (e.g.
FPGA), FPGA bitfile, compiled or translated simulation model.
It's early, so the wording is poor. Perhaps someone can help? :)
_______________________________________________
Open-graphics mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.duskglow.com/mailman/listinfo/open-graphics
List service provided by Duskglow Consulting, LLC (www.duskglow.com)
