Re: [License-discuss] GPLv1?

[John Cowan]

2017-06-18 10:59 GMT-04:00 Thorsten Glaser :

Is it deliberate or accident that the GPLv1 is not on
> https://opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical ? What’s
> the stance on it?
>

The GPLv2 was grandfathered, but licenses normally have to be submitted to
OSI by the steward, so you'd have to talk to the FSF.  Do substantial parts
of your material lack the phrase "or, at your option, any later version" in
their copyright notices?  If not, then this would be a simple solution.

I would support its recognition and placing in the "historic" category, for
what that's worth.  The differences as shown by wdiff are chiefly
editorial, with the exception of sections 7 and 8 of the GPLv2, which don't
exist in GPLv1.

-- 
John Cowan  http://vrici.lojban.org/~cowanco...@ccil.org
Even a refrigerator can conform to the XML Infoset, as long as it has
a door sticker saying "No information items inside".  --Eve Maler
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

[License-discuss] GPLv1?

[Thorsten Glaser]

Hi,

is it deliberate or accident that the GPLv1 is not on
https://opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical ? What’s
the stance on it?

It’s probably no real problem, but I maintain software
that’s got a very long history, which is GPLv1, and some
hosting platforms prescribe an OSI-approved licence.

Thanks,
//mirabilos
-- 
> emacs als auch vi zum Kotzen finde (joe rules) und pine für den einzig
> bedienbaren textmode-mailclient halte (und ich hab sie alle ausprobiert). ;)
Hallo, ich bin der Holger ("Hallo Holger!"), und ich bin ebenfalls
... pine-User, und das auch noch gewohnheitsmäßig ("Oooohhh").  [aus dasr]
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss