On Tue, 6 Sep 2005 08:18:36 -0400
Timothy Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 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.
Ok, then i'd use the term provided by the GPL itself:
"either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version."
> > > 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. :)
Hehe :)
> > > (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.
Sounds good.
> > > (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. :)
Consider me being blind. Two days of server installing took
its toll. ^^'
> > 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.
Sounds better.
> > Maybe there should be also a mentioning of "derivative works",
> > as they are a "Work" of their own.
>
> How so?
The whole license talks only about changes and modifications
of the OpenGraphics Project, nothing about someone taking
parts of the code and using it in his own. I'd say a note
"and work based on parts of this" should be enough.
> 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.
Precise enough to catch 99% of the traps without being complicated.
I do not know whether we will face any jerks, but this license
will be an example for other companies and we should be prepared
that someone will try it in curt.
> > 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.
Sounds good, but maybe the clause number should be increased by one :)
> It's early, so the wording is poor. Perhaps someone can help? :)
Sorry can't help :(
Attila Kinali
--
心をこめて聞け心をこめて話せ
_______________________________________________
Open-graphics mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.duskglow.com/mailman/listinfo/open-graphics
List service provided by Duskglow Consulting, LLC (www.duskglow.com)
