How then, can someone who tacks on the GPL, because he's seen it
before, and it's supposed to be a good choice, know exactly what he
really wants? I'm not talking about GNU Readline here, I'm talking
about numerous small projects having nothing to do with the FSF and
their grand scheme.
D. Starner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
How then, can someone who tacks on the GPL, because he's seen it
before, and it's supposed to be a good choice, know exactly what he
really wants? I'm not talking about GNU Readline here, I'm talking
about numerous small projects having nothing to do with
M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
sure. I personally feel uncomfortable with applying a license that
1) nobody knows what it means, and 2) the FSF can change the terms of
at any time.
They can't. What most people do is say This program is free
software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the
Arnoud Engelfriet [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
sure. I personally feel uncomfortable with applying a license that
1) nobody knows what it means, and 2) the FSF can change the terms of
at any time.
They can't. What most people do is say This program is free
software; you
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Måns Rullgård) writes:
I have seen claims that attempts to restrict the choice to one
particular version are invalid. I can't remember the details right
now.
Pure FUD.
GPL section 9 contains this confusing paragraph:
Each version is given a distinguishing version
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Dec 08, 2003 at 03:09:06PM -0500, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
Ah, found it -- Debian KDE list, late July 2002: Konqueror doesn't
link against OpenSSL. It runs a separate process (kcm_crypto, it
looks like), which links against openssl... but does
On Wed, Dec 10, 2003 at 03:31:40PM +0100, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
All that seems rather obvious to me, so why write it down? Would
there be another possible interpretation otherwise? If that's the
case, why not mention programs that allow only one specified version?
In law, anything which is
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Dec 10, 2003 at 03:31:40PM +0100, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
All that seems rather obvious to me, so why write it down? Would
there be another possible interpretation otherwise? If that's the
case, why not mention programs that allow only one
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Måns Rullgård) writes:
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Dec 10, 2003 at 03:31:40PM +0100, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
All that seems rather obvious to me, so why write it down? Would
there be another possible interpretation otherwise? If that's the
case, why
M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
Arnoud Engelfriet [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This way the FSF can introduce a new version of the GPL and I
can use any software with the above text under that new version.
But if the software is only licensed under GPLv2, there is no
way I can use it under GPLv3
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) writes:
No, that's because the GPL is designed to work well in a variety of
legal climates, and each different jurisdiction spells out the
definition of Derived Work in its own legal code.
I did a quick look in Swedish and Norwegian copyright law (those
Scripsit [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Måns Rullgård)
I know that is how law works. I just find it strange, that the GPL is
so explicit on this point, and yet doesn't bother to clarify at all
what a derived work might be, just to take an example.
It's on purpose: The GPL wants as much as possible to be
Måns Rullgård [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I know that is how law works. I just find it strange, that the GPL is
so explicit on this point, and yet doesn't bother to clarify at all
what a derived work might be, just to take an example.
I suppose the idea is to have the GPL apply as broadly as
Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Måns Rullgård [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I know that is how law works. I just find it strange, that the GPL is
so explicit on this point, and yet doesn't bother to clarify at all
what a derived work might be, just to take an example.
I suppose the
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Scripsit [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Måns Rullgård)
I know that is how law works. I just find it strange, that the GPL is
so explicit on this point, and yet doesn't bother to clarify at all
what a derived work might be, just to take an example.
It's on
Arnoud Engelfriet [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
Arnoud Engelfriet [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This way the FSF can introduce a new version of the GPL and I
can use any software with the above text under that new version.
But if the software is only licensed under GPLv2,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Måns Rullgård) writes:
Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Måns Rullgård [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I know that is how law works. I just find it strange, that the GPL is
so explicit on this point, and yet doesn't bother to clarify at all
what a derived work might be,
On Wed, 10 Dec 2003, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Wed, Dec 10, 2003 at 10:28:57PM +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote:
FSF advocates that wording, and there are rumors that you *must* do it
that way. Be the rumors true or not, almost everyone uses that
clause.
I believe that's the main reason for not
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Due to the GFDL debacle, I no longer trust the FSF's conception of
free (eg. similar in spirit) to my own software, so I'm not
comfortable with the upgrade clause, and not using the upgrade clause
will cause big problems down the road, so I'm starting to avoid
On Wed, Dec 10, 2003 at 10:46:29PM +, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
So what do you use instead?
If you think your licence solves both the problems you mention, then
presumably you believe that your licence has a good chance of being
compatible with GPLv3 if GPLv3 turns out to be a good
20 matches
Mail list logo
