Scripsit Gervase Markham [EMAIL PROTECTED]
There's nothing magical about non-programmatic langagues that makes
copyright law not apply.
Indeed not. But there is something about the concepts of linking and
other software-oriented words the licence uses which make the
judgement significantly
Hello,
My understanding is that Linux is distributed under the GPLv2 exclusively. That
is, instead of the usual GPL version 2 or later it just says GPL version 2.
Given the vast number of Linux contributors, this means that Linux won't be
able to migrate to the GPLv3 when it comes out,
Daniel Carrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hello,
My understanding is that Linux is distributed under the GPLv2
exclusively. That is, instead of the usual GPL version 2 or later it
just says GPL version 2.
That's what it says, yes. People occasionally question the validity
of that, though,
On Sun, Mar 13, 2005 at 02:09:10PM +0100, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
Daniel Carrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Given the vast number of Linux contributors, this means that Linux
won't be able to migrate to the GPLv3 when it comes out, correct?
That would be the case. Is this a problem?
Måns Rullgård wrote:
Given the vast number of Linux contributors, this means that Linux
won't be able to migrate to the GPLv3 when it comes out, correct?
That would be the case. Is this a problem?
For a large colaborative project, possibly. Using only the GPLv2 means you are
trapped in
M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
Daniel Carrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
My understanding is that Linux is distributed under the GPLv2
exclusively. That is, instead of the usual GPL version 2 or later it
just says GPL version 2.
That's what it says, yes. People occasionally question the validity
Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
I'm interested in why you think it's not.
Wow, hey. I was just asking a question. I didn't know there was an issue here.
I certainly haven't thought about it half as much as you have.
Cheers,
--
Daniel Carrera | I don't want it perfect,
Join OOoAuthors
On Sun, Mar 13, 2005 at 08:31:38AM -0500, Daniel Carrera wrote:
Henning Makholm wrote:
Yes, probably. (Which, if the signals we've been getting from FSF the
last few years are to be trusted, does not strike me as a bad thing at
all).
This issue is new to me. What are those signals?
Daniel Carrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Måns Rullgård wrote:
Given the vast number of Linux contributors, this means that Linux
won't be able to migrate to the GPLv3 when it comes out, correct?
That would be the case. Is this a problem?
For a large colaborative project, possibly.
Arnoud Engelfriet [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
And probably it will also deal with running the code on a publicly
accessible server.
The question is if a license based on copyright can legally place such
restrictions on use of the program.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To
Måns Rullgård wrote:
Well, then it means you gave people more freedoms than you
intended. You can still make a GPLv2 fork and make all subsequent
releases GPLv2 only.
Only if all the copyright holders agree. Suppose A has accepted
contributions from B, with the or later option, and it
Daniel Carrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Måns Rullgård wrote:
Well, then it means you gave people more freedoms than you
intended. You can still make a GPLv2 fork and make all subsequent
releases GPLv2 only.
Only if all the copyright holders agree. Suppose A has accepted
On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 09:31:51 -0500 Daniel Carrera wrote:
Måns Rullgård wrote:
Well, then it means you gave people more freedoms than you
intended. You can still make a GPLv2 fork and make all subsequent
releases GPLv2 only.
Only if all the copyright holders agree. Suppose A has
On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 14:33:36 +0100 Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
Interesting point. But the statement would apply certainly to
Linus' own contributions. And that would preclude distribution
of anything containing those contributions under anything but GPLv2
I think. But if you can take out his
On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 16:50:39 +0100 Måns Rullgård wrote:
If, one might argue, the author wishes for the terms to remain those
of the GPLv2, why does he not remove the or any later version
option? The answer is simple. Such a license is not compatible with
the standard GPL (with the upgrade
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 16:50:39 +0100 Måns Rullgård wrote:
If, one might argue, the author wishes for the terms to remain those
of the GPLv2, why does he not remove the or any later version
option? The answer is simple. Such a license is not compatible
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 00:38:21 +1100, Matthew Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm too tired to dig up the exact reference, but in a large heated
discussion between Hans Reiser and many other people on d-devel last year
(or maybe the year before) about removing or obscuring credits in
M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
If, one might argue, the author wishes for the terms to remain those
of the GPLv2, why does he not remove the or any later version
option? The answer is simple. Such a license is not compatible with
the standard GPL (with the upgrade option), since it has further
M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
Arnoud Engelfriet [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
And probably it will also deal with running the code on a publicly
accessible server.
The question is if a license based on copyright can legally place such
restrictions on use of the program.
I've heard people speculate
Arnoud Engelfriet [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
Arnoud Engelfriet [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
And probably it will also deal with running the code on a publicly
accessible server.
The question is if a license based on copyright can legally place such
restrictions on use
Missing from this discussion is a rather important aspect of this license...
the law. If GPL v3 comes out with provisions that are even arguablly
different from GPL v2 there will be all sorts of grounds for developers to
strike out the 'or later' language from all prior grants of access to
Mns Rullgrd [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If, one might argue, the author wishes for the terms to remain those
of the GPLv2, why does he not remove the or any later version
option? The answer is simple. Such a license is not compatible with
the standard GPL (with the upgrade option), since it
Le dimanche 13 mars 2005 14:09 +0100, Mns Rullgrd a crit :
Personally, I'd be very sceptical about releasing code under a license
containing a blanket permission to use it under another yet to be
written license. What if I don't at all agree with GPLv3?
Given that the FSF has already written
M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
Arnoud Engelfriet [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I've heard people speculate that this could be called a
public performance of the work, like singing a song in front
of an audience. And the right of public performance is in
copyright law.
I don't think this a very good
Sean Kellogg [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Missing from this discussion is a rather important aspect of this
license... the law. If GPL v3 comes out with provisions that are
even arguablly different from GPL v2 there will be all sorts of
grounds for developers to strike out the 'or later'
Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Le dimanche 13 mars 2005 à 14:09 +0100, Måns Rullgård a écrit :
Personally, I'd be very sceptical about releasing code under a license
containing a blanket permission to use it under another yet to be
written license. What if I don't at all agree
On Sunday 13 March 2005 01:21 pm, Måns Rullgård wrote:
Well, there are a few that dislike v2 already, or at least some of the
more far-reaching interpretations of it. Seeing as v3 will attempt to
extend its reach even further, I see it as inevitable that a fair
amount of people will have a
Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Le dimanche 13 mars 2005 à 14:09 +0100, Måns Rullgård a écrit :
Personally, I'd be very sceptical about releasing code under a license
containing a blanket permission to use it under another yet to be
written license. What if I don't at all agree
Arnoud Engelfriet [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
Arnoud Engelfriet [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I've heard people speculate that this could be called a
public performance of the work, like singing a song in front
of an audience. And the right of public performance is in
On Sunday 13 March 2005 02:12 pm, Måns Rullgård wrote:
It's also rather interesting how people, apparently without much
reflection, release code under terms, the interpretation of which is as
yet undefined. Given the grayness of these legal areas, and the lack
of prior case-law, the outcome
Sean Kellogg [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sunday 13 March 2005 02:12 pm, Måns Rullgård wrote:
It's also rather interesting how people, apparently without much
reflection, release code under terms, the interpretation of which is as
yet undefined. Given the grayness of these legal areas, and
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sun, Mar 13, 2005 at 03:24:24PM +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote:
We have to consider the possibility that GPLv3 will say something we
don not want. Then we do not want people distributing it under those
terms. Never give permission to do something you
(Apologies if I was just rehashing old stuff--a long work week made me
not notice that this thread is already a couple dozen posts old ...)
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
~ i've been using xbgm#¹ for awhile now and find it usefull enough to
add it to Debian.
It's a very nice xbox game manager that some may consider as the Qwix
for none-MS Windows OSes.
Now, the software is under the GPL and does not contain any
34 matches
Mail list logo
