On 2013-07-05 17:38, Uoti Urpala wrote:
The reason I replied wasn't so much to comment on the historical
licensing of the kernel (it's old enough to not matter much now
anyway),
but to comment on the legal argument that was the core of Linus's post
you linked to. He claimed that including the
On 07/06/2013 02:14 AM, Philipp Kern wrote:
On 2013-07-05 17:38, Uoti Urpala wrote:
The reason I replied wasn't so much to comment on the historical
licensing of the kernel (it's old enough to not matter much now
anyway), but to comment on the legal argument that was the core of
Linus's
On Fri, Jul 05, 2013 at 01:08:27AM +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
On 07/05/2013 12:58 AM, Jakub Wilk wrote:
* David Weinehall t...@debian.org, 2013-07-04, 16:36:
http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/1/25/273
http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/1/30/100
Could you be a bit more elaborate please? I
On 07/05/2013 02:07 PM, David Weinehall wrote:
So, that's Linus's stand on whether or not a GPLv3 kernel is feasible.
I hope this totally pointless thread can die now.
Thanks for extracting the relevant parts. I guess I was just way too
tired yesterday to start diving into the posting on LKML
David Weinehall wrote:
OK, I'll instead quote what Linus wrote in the link I posted:
The version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later
version language in the GPL copying file is not - and has never
been - part of the actual License itself. It's part of the
As far
On Fri, 2013-07-05 at 16:14 +0300, Uoti Urpala wrote:
David Weinehall wrote:
OK, I'll instead quote what Linus wrote in the link I posted:
The version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later
version language in the GPL copying file is not - and has never
been - part
Hi,
On Fri, Jul 05, 2013 at 04:28:13PM +0200, Svante Signell wrote:
On Fri, 2013-07-05 at 16:14 +0300, Uoti Urpala wrote:
Since this discussion took place in 2006, the Linux as a whole would
probably be too old to be intersting. However, there are big chunks of
current code having the 'or (at
On Fri, 2013-07-05 at 16:31 +0200, Michael Banck wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, Jul 05, 2013 at 04:28:13PM +0200, Svante Signell wrote:
On Fri, 2013-07-05 at 16:14 +0300, Uoti Urpala wrote:
Since this discussion took place in 2006, the Linux as a whole would
probably be too old to be intersting.
On Fri, Jul 05, 2013 at 04:14:57PM +0300, Uoti Urpala wrote:
[snip]
a post from Alan Cox explaining this. I don't see why you would post
your link again in full quote after that without explaining why you
still thought Linus wasn't wrong.
I posted it fully because the parent I responded to
On 07/05/2013 12:24 PM, David Weinehall wrote:
On Fri, Jul 05, 2013 at 04:14:57PM +0300, Uoti Urpala wrote:
[snip]
a post from Alan Cox explaining this. I don't see why you would
post your link again in full quote after that without explaining
why you still thought Linus wasn't wrong.
I
Svante Signell svante.sign...@gmail.com writes:
On Fri, 2013-07-05 at 16:14 +0300, Uoti Urpala wrote:
David Weinehall wrote:
OK, I'll instead quote what Linus wrote in the link I posted:
The version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later
version language in the GPL
David Weinehall wrote:
On Fri, Jul 05, 2013 at 04:14:57PM +0300, Uoti Urpala wrote:
[snip]
a post from Alan Cox explaining this. I don't see why you would post
your link again in full quote after that without explaining why you
still thought Linus wasn't wrong.
I posted it fully because
On Wed, Jul 03, 2013 at 09:17:48PM +0200, Svante Signell wrote:
On Tue, 2013-07-02 at 15:32 -0700, John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
Svante Signell wrote:
I've been thinking about this for some time now. There is a need for a
gplv3+-compliant Debian-based distribution! Meaning that gplv2
* David Weinehall t...@debian.org, 2013-07-04, 16:36:
http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/1/25/273
http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/1/30/100
--
Jakub Wilk
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive:
On 07/05/2013 12:58 AM, Jakub Wilk wrote:
* David Weinehall t...@debian.org, 2013-07-04, 16:36:
http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/1/25/273
http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/1/30/100
Could you be a bit more elaborate please? I don't think we should just
spam this list by just sending mails containing URLs
On Tue, 2013-07-02 at 15:32 -0700, John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
Svante Signell wrote:
I've been thinking about this for some time now. There is a need for a
gplv3+-compliant Debian-based distribution! Meaning that gplv2 only code
will not be included! For kernels, kFreeBSD and Hurd will
On 07/03/2013 09:17 PM, Svante Signell wrote:
The interesting thing is not when Linus used the GPL license the first
time, it was v2 by then. Of crucial interest is when Linus changed from
v2 or later to v2 only. And looking at the source code, e.g. 3.9.8, a
very lot of files are still v2+, not
On Tue, Jul 02, 2013 at 03:32:00PM -0700, John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
Svante Signell wrote:
I've been thinking about this for some time now. There is a need for a
gplv3+-compliant Debian-based distribution! Meaning that gplv2 only code
will not be included! For kernels, kFreeBSD and Hurd
Hi,
I've been thinking about this for some time now. There is a need for a
gplv3+-compliant Debian-based distribution! Meaning that gplv2 only code
will not be included! For kernels, kFreeBSD and Hurd will remain, and
Linux will be several years back of course. Anybody has an idea on how
old
On Tue, Jul 02, 2013 at 10:24:40PM +0200, Svante Signell wrote:
Hi,
I've been thinking about this for some time now. There is a need for a
gplv3+-compliant Debian-based distribution! Meaning that gplv2 only code
will not be included! For kernels, kFreeBSD and Hurd will remain, and
Linux
Svante Signell, le Tue 02 Jul 2013 22:24:40 +0200, a écrit :
I've been thinking about this for some time now. There is a need for a
gplv3+-compliant Debian-based distribution!
I don't see why there should be such a need. By Debian's standards
GPLv2 is GFDL-compliant.
Samuek
--
To
Samuel Thibault, le Tue 02 Jul 2013 22:29:46 +0200, a écrit :
Svante Signell, le Tue 02 Jul 2013 22:24:40 +0200, a écrit :
I've been thinking about this for some time now. There is a need for a
gplv3+-compliant Debian-based distribution!
I don't see why there should be such a need. By
On Tue, 2013-07-02 at 21:29 +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
On Tue, Jul 02, 2013 at 10:24:40PM +0200, Svante Signell wrote:
Hi,
I've been thinking about this for some time now. There is a need for a
gplv3+-compliant Debian-based distribution! Meaning that gplv2 only code
will not be
Svante Signell svante.sign...@gmail.com writes:
Sorry Ben, I'm serious about this. GPLv2 is evil wrt progress, and I
still would like to know how many years Linux would back until the first
V2 only statement. Of course you cannot answer this question, but maybe
somebody else.
It's not just
Svante Signell wrote:
I've been thinking about this for some time now. There is a need for a
gplv3+-compliant Debian-based distribution! Meaning that gplv2 only code
will not be included! For kernels, kFreeBSD and Hurd will remain, and
Linux will be several years back of course. Anybody has
On Jul 02, Ben Hutchings b...@decadent.org.uk wrote:
You're slipping. Your trolling used to be way more subtle.
I do not think that Svante has ever been trolling.
--
ciao,
Marco
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Wed, Jul 03, 2013 at 01:16:04AM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
On Jul 02, Ben Hutchings b...@decadent.org.uk wrote:
You're slipping. Your trolling used to be way more subtle.
I do not think that Svante has ever been trolling.
My initial thought was WTF but Ben's email seem to make it all
27 matches
Mail list logo
