Re: libidn re-license
Kalle Olavi Niemitalo k...@iki.fi writes: Simon Josefsson si...@josefsson.org writes: I have looked at licenses of reverse dependencies, and I did found some GPLv2-only packages. That caused me to dual license the package instead of going to LGPLv3+. (GPLv2-only and LGPLv3+ are incompatible.) I am not aware of any other license that could pose any problem with a dual-licensed GPLv2+|LGPLv3+ package. I believe GPLv2+|LGPLv3+ is incompatible with GPLv2|OpenSSL-linking-exception, used in ekg2. Thank you for a good data point. I've brought this up with licens...@gnu.org to hear what they have to say about it. /Simon -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87399jphsl@latte.josefsson.org
Re: libidn re-license
On 07/03/12 09:01, Simon Josefsson wrote: I co-maintain the libidn package. As upstream, I recently relicensed it from LGPLv2+ to GPLv2+|LGPLv3+. This effectively means: recipients of the new libidn may choose any license which they could choose for the old libidn, except for the LGPLv2 and LGPLv2.1. Is there a particular reason why you want to deny permission to use your library under those specific licenses? Is there something they allow that you want to forbid? If not, I'm not sure that I see why you'd want to change it... particularly if you have to get into dual-licensing. I can see advantages of the LGPLv3 over the LGPLv2 from a clarity point of view (it's just the GPLv3 with exceptions, whereas the LGPLv2 and v2.1 are separate licenses with explicit provision to relicense to the GPLv2), but an explicit dual-license seems as though it defeats that clarity. Obviously, it's your choice as copyright holder, but I can't say I'm entirely happy about libraries getting a more restrictive license in newer versions; I feel as though the general principle of backwards-compatible API (everything that used to work should still work) applies just as much to licensing. Hopefully nobody's going to end up forking an older version as libidn-lgpl2 or something... S -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4f588396.3060...@debian.org
Re: Third party code license issue
Adam Sampson, 2012-03-08 13:29+0100: Medhamsh m...@medhamsh.org writes: “The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil.” That's the JSON license, which has been discussed here before -- have a look at bug #585468, #585470 or #602250 for other examples. That is right. By the way, this license is also considered non-free by the FSF because it conflicts with freedom 0: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html. -- ,--. : /` ) Tanguy Ortolo xmpp:tan...@ortolo.eu irc://irc.oftc.net/Tanguy | `-'Debian Developer \_ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/jjahiu$ca6$2...@dough.gmane.org
Re: Third party code license issue
Hello, On Thu, March 8, 2012 8:30 pm, Tanguy Ortolo wrote: Adam Sampson, 2012-03-08 13:29+0100: Medhamsh m...@medhamsh.org writes: âThe Software shall be used for Good, not Evil.â That's the JSON license, which has been discussed here before -- have a look at bug #585468, #585470 or #602250 for other examples. I have re-packed the upstream source by removing that file. That file is not at all used by the debian package and the software still works as it should without that file also. Thanks a lot for all your suggestions and guidelines. Sincerely, -- Medhamsh Hacktivist | http://medhamsh.org BD16 E32E CA4D 83A3 1270 725D D766 7997 0ABC 20E9 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/17809.122.169.175.104.1331224064.squir...@mail.medhamsh.org
