On 2016-01-21 04:49, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
does anything speak against switching Setup's license to GPLv3+?
If nobody complains, I'll bump to v3+ in a week or so.
Fine with me wrt my contributions.
--
Yaakov
Corinna Vinschen writes:
> does anything speak against switching Setup's license to GPLv3+?
> If nobody complains, I'll bump to v3+ in a week or so.
I have no problem with that.
Regards,
Achim.
--
+<[Q+ Matrix-12 WAVE#46+305 Neuron microQkb Andromeda XTk Blofeld]>+
Waldorf MIDI Im
Warren Young writes:
>> I'm not trying to do that single-handedly and without reason. I'm
>> asking here to reach out to the current active developers. A switch
>> from GPLv2+ to GPLv3+ works without having to reach out to *all*
>> copyright holder.
>
> I don’
On Jan 22, 2016, at 9:54 AM, Corinna Vinschen <corinna-cyg...@cygwin.com> wrote:
>
> On Jan 21 15:55, Warren Young wrote:
>> On Jan 21, 2016, at 3:49 AM, Corinna Vinschen <corinna-cyg...@cygwin.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> does anything speak against sw
gt;>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> does anything speak against switching Setup's license to GPLv3+?
>>>> If nobody complains, I'll bump to v3+ in a week or so.
>>>
>>> Can you actually do that, legally? I thought the copyright
>>> assignments o
hat may be overly paranoid, but it is also easy enough to do. I'm also
> fine if we keep original code with v2+ labels, add new v3+ code in
> separate files, link it all together, and slap GPLv3+ on the final
> resulting executable. That is the only license with which we can s
On Jan 21 15:55, Warren Young wrote:
> On Jan 21, 2016, at 3:49 AM, Corinna Vinschen <corinna-cyg...@cygwin.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > does anything speak against switching Setup's license to GPLv3+?
> > If nobody complains, I'll bump to v3+ in a week or so.
>
> C
Hi guys,
does anything speak against switching Setup's license to GPLv3+?
If nobody complains, I'll bump to v3+ in a week or so.
Thanks,
Corinna
--
Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Maintainer cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat
On Jan 21, 2016, at 3:49 AM, Corinna Vinschen <corinna-cyg...@cygwin.com> wrote:
>
> does anything speak against switching Setup's license to GPLv3+?
> If nobody complains, I'll bump to v3+ in a week or so.
Can you actually do that, legally? I thought the copyright assignment
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
According to Corinna Vinschen on 7/2/2007 12:04 PM:
In the meantime, as long as the GPLv3 is not OSI certified (which
shouldn't take long), Red Hat will not enforce the GPLv2-only state of
Cygwin on the back of GPLv3 packages. So, tar 1.18 can
On Jul 2 15:09, Yaakov (Cygwin Ports) wrote:
Corinna Vinschen wrote:
There are no short-term plans to change the license of Cygwin, rather we
just wait until the OSI certifies the GPLv3 as open source license
according to the definitions. As Brian already noted, as soon as the
OSI
On 03 July 2007 08:09, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
And there I was trying to TITTLL the thread.
Oh well, anyone for hippos? ;-)
BTW, I just noticed the link to the OSI site is 404. It could be that it's
one of those sites that just don't work if you disable scripts and cookies,
but it's
On Jul 3 18:43, Dave Korn wrote:
BTW, I just noticed the link to the OSI site is 404. It could be that it's
one of those sites that just don't work if you disable scripts and cookies,
but it's more likely the link is just out-of-date.
Fixed.
Thanks for the hint,
Corinna
--
Corinna
that building an image of tar 1.18 linked against cygwin1.dll
constitutes a license violation?
Remember that the Cygwin license includes an OSI exemption, so as long
as GPLv3 is eventually OSI certified (as if...) it's fine on the Cygwin
side. I don't know about the other direction though
I'll try to get legal advice about Cygwin and the
GPLv3.
All this licensing stuff gives me headaches. I gave up trying to understand
it long ago.
Corinna, whenever you or someone else gets legal advice about this, I'd
appreciate it if a policy could be posted stating as clearly as possible
On Jul 2 10:40, Andrew Schulman wrote:
I'll try to get legal advice about Cygwin and the
GPLv3.
All this licensing stuff gives me headaches. I gave up trying to understand
it long ago.
Unfortunately the wording of the GPLv3 got rather less easy to
understand than the GPLv2. I can see
In the meantime, treat the http://cygwin.com/licensing.html page as
state of the art, especially the open source permission clause.
Thanks.
On Jul 2 11:28, Andrew Schulman wrote:
In the meantime, treat the http://cygwin.com/licensing.html page as
state of the art, especially the open source permission clause.
Thanks.
Ok, I got legal advice now.
Linking a GPLv3 application against a GPLv2-only library is not ok
because
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Corinna Vinschen wrote:
There are no short-term plans to change the license of Cygwin, rather we
just wait until the OSI certifies the GPLv3 as open source license
according to the definitions. As Brian already noted, as soon as the
OSI
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Corinna Vinschen wrote:
Red Hat will not enforce the GPLv2-only state of
Cygwin on the back of GPLv3 packages. So, tar 1.18 can stay in the
distro if Eric trusts Red Hat not to sue him.
I'll trust Red Hat much more than other companies
On 02 July 2007 21:10, Yaakov (Cygwin Ports) wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Corinna Vinschen wrote:
There are no short-term plans to change the license of Cygwin, rather we
just wait until the OSI certifies the GPLv3 as open source license
according
against cygwin1.dll
constitutes a license violation?
Remember that the Cygwin license includes an OSI exemption, so as long
as GPLv3 is eventually OSI certified (as if...) it's fine on the Cygwin
side. I don't know about the other direction though.
Thanks for the reminder about the exception
think GPLv3 will
have any problem achieving OSI exemption, so I went ahead and uploaded tar
^
s/exemption/certification/
1.18.
- --
Don't work too hard, make some time for fun as well!
Eric Blake [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
tar 1.18 was just released, and is one of the first GNU packages that
requires GPLv3 or later. Meanwhile, cygwin is explicit in requiring
exactly GPLv2. According to the GPLv3 FAQ, http://gplv3.fsf.org/dd3-faq,
it is NOT okay for a GPLv3 program
Eric Blake wrote:
tar 1.18 was just released, and is one of the first GNU packages that
requires GPLv3 or later. Meanwhile, cygwin is explicit in requiring
exactly GPLv2. According to the GPLv3 FAQ, http://gplv3.fsf.org/dd3-faq,
it is NOT okay for a GPLv3 program to link against a GPLv2
25 matches
Mail list logo
