On Sun, 5 Jan 2014, Clint Adams wrote:
because any code under this license would be deliberately incompatible
with anything else FOR NO GOOD REASON.
Uhm, then stop advocating the GNU GPL, which is deliberately incompatible
with anything else FOR NO GOOD REASON.
bye,
//mirabilos
--
[16:04:33]
On Sat, Jan 04, 2014 at 03:13:01AM +, Clint Adams wrote:
On Wed, Jan 01, 2014 at 10:58:32AM +0100, David Weinehall wrote:
That's also why I *don't* use BSD-style licenses for software that
I write, but rather GPLv2 or LGPLv2.1.
So if someone takes your LGPLv2.1-only software and adds
On 6 January 2014 15:07, David Weinehall t...@debian.org wrote:
On Sat, Jan 04, 2014 at 03:13:01AM +, Clint Adams wrote:
On Wed, Jan 01, 2014 at 10:58:32AM +0100, David Weinehall wrote:
That's also why I *don't* use BSD-style licenses for software that
I write, but rather GPLv2 or
Hi Dimitri,
On Mon, 6 Jan 2014 15:22:09 +, Dimitri John Ledkov x...@debian.org
wrote:
But GPL text does confuse me as a whole, no modifications nor derivate
works of the GPL license text are allowed, and the original text has
and later clause - is licensing without and later constitues
Op 05-01-14 15:57, Clint Adams schreef:
On Sat, Jan 04, 2014 at 05:07:29PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
This goes for GPLvX or later, but also for other or later licenses,
where they exist.
I'm convinced that the GPLv2 is a free license, but I'm so far undecided
on the GPLv3 (mainly because
On Sat, Jan 04, 2014 at 05:07:29PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
This goes for GPLvX or later, but also for other or later licenses,
where they exist.
I'm convinced that the GPLv2 is a free license, but I'm so far undecided
on the GPLv3 (mainly because I've not read the license text in much
Hi there!
On Sat, 04 Jan 2014 04:29:02 +0100, Paul Tagliamonte wrote:
On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 08:59:53AM -0600, Matt Zagrabelny wrote:
So your doomsday scenario is that if you license something
GPLv2+, someone might fork and modify it to be GPLv3+,
I was under the impression that forks
On Wed, Jan 01, 2014 at 10:58:32AM +0100, David Weinehall wrote:
That's also why I *don't* use BSD-style licenses for software that
I write, but rather GPLv2 or LGPLv2.1.
So if someone takes your LGPLv2.1-only software and adds GPLv2-only
code to it, do you feel similarly betrayed because you
On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 08:59:53AM -0600, Matt Zagrabelny wrote:
So your doomsday scenario is that if you license something
GPLv2+, someone might fork and modify it to be GPLv3+,
I was under the impression that forks couldn't change licenses. Is the
scenario which Clint describes (legally)
Florian Weimer writes (Re: GPLv2-only considered harmful):
ASL 2.0 compatibility is nice, but the GPLv3 also contains this clause
which (in my opinion) substantially weakens its copyleft effect:
| You may convey covered works to others for the sole purpose of
| having them make modifications
On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 02:54:50PM +, Clint Adams wrote:
On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 03:50:06AM +0100, David Weinehall wrote:
Apart from the termination clause, the GPLv2 is far more concise,
I don't see tivoization as a problem (it's the software I want to
protect, not anyone's combination
On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 03:50:06AM +0100, David Weinehall wrote:
Apart from the termination clause, the GPLv2 is far more concise,
I don't see tivoization as a problem (it's the software I want to
protect, not anyone's combination of it with hardware), nor do I care
about compatibility with
On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 8:54 AM, Clint Adams cl...@debian.org wrote:
On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 03:50:06AM +0100, David Weinehall wrote:
Apart from the termination clause, the GPLv2 is far more concise,
I don't see tivoization as a problem (it's the software I want to
protect, not anyone's
Matt,
Yes, it is possible, but only the contributions of the fork would be
GPLv3 only, the original GPLv2+ code would still be just that.
Nevertheless, the final product would be GPLv3 only.
Cameron Norman
On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 6:59 AM, Matt Zagrabelny mzagr...@d.umn.edu
wrote:
On Tue,
On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 08:59:53AM -0600, Matt Zagrabelny wrote:
On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 8:54 AM, Clint Adams cl...@debian.org wrote:
On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 03:50:06AM +0100, David Weinehall wrote:
Apart from the termination clause, the GPLv2 is far more concise,
I don't see tivoization as
On 2013-12-28 19:24:33 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
Now, the companies in question may legitimately regard a GPLv2+
upstream as a source business risk, because they have no guarantee
that future versions of the software won't be made available under
GPLv3+ instead of GPLv2+, and if they're
* Stephen M. Webb:
Nope. An organization that will not accept the GPLv3 because of the
tivoization and patent clauses will not accept GPLv2 or later.
Apple allegedly rejects the GPLv3, but continues to distribute
GPLv2-or-later code.
Microsoft distributes GPLv2-or-later code, too.
--
To
* Clint Adams:
The only theoretical advantage I see to GPLv2 is in the termination
clause, and in practice that seems to be really more trouble than
it's worth.
Beyond that you have substandard and unclear wording, tivoization,
lesser patent protection, and incompatibility with Apache 2.0.
On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 05:59:35PM -0500, Stephen M. Webb wrote:
Nope. An organization that will not accept the GPLv3 because of the
tivoization and patent clauses will not accept
GPLv2 or later. The or later clause means a downstream can invoke their
rights under the GPLv3 to demand
On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 09:45:09AM +0100, David Weinehall wrote:
As one of the GPL v2 only proponents, I take affront. I choose to
license what little software I release as GPL v2 only because I do not
consider the GPL v3 to have what attracted me to use the GPL v2 in the
first place.
The
On 12/28/2013 03:53 PM, Clint Adams wrote:
On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 09:45:09AM +0100, David Weinehall wrote:
As one of the GPL v2 only proponents, I take affront. I choose to
license what little software I release as GPL v2 only because I do not
consider the GPL v3 to have what attracted me to
On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 04:11:18PM -0500, Stephen M. Webb wrote:
On 12/28/2013 03:53 PM, Clint Adams wrote:
On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 09:45:09AM +0100, David Weinehall wrote:
As one of the GPL v2 only proponents, I take affront. I choose to
license what little software I release as GPL v2
On 12/28/2013 04:15 PM, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 04:11:18PM -0500, Stephen M. Webb wrote:
On 12/28/2013 03:53 PM, Clint Adams wrote:
On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 09:45:09AM +0100, David Weinehall wrote:
As one of the GPL v2 only proponents, I take affront. I choose to
license
On Sun, 29 Dec 2013 02:59:35 +0400, Stephen M. Webb
stephen.w...@bregmasoft.ca wrote:
On 12/28/2013 04:15 PM, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 04:11:18PM -0500, Stephen M. Webb wrote:
On 12/28/2013 03:53 PM, Clint Adams wrote:
On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 09:45:09AM +0100, David
On 28/12/13 22:59, Stephen M. Webb wrote:
On 12/28/2013 04:15 PM, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 04:11:18PM -0500, Stephen M. Webb wrote:
There are organization who will allow v2 but not v3 because of the
tivoizaton and patent clauses. A developer may want
his work to be used by
On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 05:59:35PM -0500, Stephen M. Webb wrote:
On 12/28/2013 04:15 PM, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 04:11:18PM -0500, Stephen M. Webb wrote:
On 12/28/2013 03:53 PM, Clint Adams wrote:
On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 09:45:09AM +0100, David Weinehall wrote:
As one
On 12/28/2013 07:51 PM, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
The or later means or later and just that. It doesn't mean
a downstream can say they received it under the later version.
And the upstream can't claim that either.
The or later means my clients' lawyers state unequivocally that they will not
On 2013-12-28 17:59:35 -0500, Stephen M. Webb wrote:
On 12/28/2013 04:15 PM, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 04:11:18PM -0500, Stephen M. Webb wrote:
There are organization who will allow v2 but not v3 because of
the tivoizaton and patent clauses. A developer may want his work
On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 08:53:56PM +, Clint Adams wrote:
On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 09:45:09AM +0100, David Weinehall wrote:
As one of the GPL v2 only proponents, I take affront. I choose to
license what little software I release as GPL v2 only because I do not
consider the GPL v3 to have
On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 08:38:09PM -0500, Stephen M. Webb wrote:
On 12/28/2013 07:51 PM, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
The or later means or later and just that. It doesn't mean
a downstream can say they received it under the later version.
And the upstream can't claim that either.
The or later
30 matches
Mail list logo
