[Savannah-hackers-public] GPL and “All rights reserved”
Hi, there is this new submission #12640[0] which has some files which say All rights reserved among the GPL license notice. Is this problematic? Or can it be simply dismissed, as [1] suggests? Best regards. [0] https://savannah.gnu.org/task/index.php?12640 [1] http://help.lockergnome.com/linux/rights-reserved-GPL--ftopict471741.html
Re: [Savannah-hackers-public] GPL and “All rights reserved”
On 06/01/2013 01:58 PM, Aljosha Papsch wrote: [0] https://savannah.gnu.org/task/index.php?12640 says: ASIC/FPGA mining (primary use) has no such limitations. Out of curiosity: I wonder whether anything that depends on FPGA may qualify as free software system.
Re: [Savannah-hackers-public] GPL and “All rights reserved”
Am 01.06.2013 15:32, schrieb Ineiev: On 06/01/2013 01:58 PM, Aljosha Papsch wrote: [0] https://savannah.gnu.org/task/index.php?12640 says: ASIC/FPGA mining (primary use) has no such limitations. Out of curiosity: I wonder whether anything that depends on FPGA may qualify as free software system. Can you elaborate? I was under the impression that, as stated by the submitter, the ZTEX FPGA driver is free software, therefore the primary mining method can be done with free software alone. Or am I wrong? I'm not familiar with Bitcoin mining at all.
Re: [Savannah-hackers-public] GPL and “All rights reserved”
ASIC/FPGA mining (primary use) has no such limitations. What does mining mean here? I searched around but could not figure it out. Out of curiosity: I wonder whether anything that depends on FPGA may qualify as free software system. If the programmed chips, or instructions for the programming, are available, why not? I'm sure I don't get it ... k
Re: [Savannah-hackers-public] GPL and “All rights reserved”
All rights reserved among the GPL license notice. Is this problematic? Or can it be simply dismissed, as [1] suggests? [1] http://help.lockergnome.com/linux/rights-reserved-GPL--ftopict471741.html As far as I know, All rights reserved has no legal effect any more, as the first responder at your cited url said. But it would still definitely be better to remove it, simply to avoid the useless (and inevitable) future questions of whether it is a problem. karl
