(Cc: debian-legal)
On September 4, 2007 at 6:43PM +0200,
svenjoac (at gmx.de) wrote:
So if we have any such elisp code in Debian, should we exclude
installation and byte-compilation for versions of Emacs that are
licensed under the GPL v3? I presume this includes emacs-snapshot and
Tatsuya Kinoshita [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(Cc: debian-legal)
I have redistribuated the original email I sent to -emacsen to -legal,
for proper context.
Peter
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Tatsuya Kinoshita [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think that even if distribution of *.elc file should be licensed
under GPLv3, *.el file under non-GPLv3 can be distributed, because
locally installation and byte-compilation are not limited by GPLv3.
I disagree. It's not simply about
This isn't strictly an Emacs isuue, but it certainly affects us...
As I understand it, the GPL v3 is more strict then the GPL v2 and thus
is incompatible. Is that correct?
That means that as Emacs migrates to GPL v3, and elisp code licensed
under the GPL v2 (without the or any later version
Hello!
We (The Debian VDR Packaging Team [1]) are currently discussing some
license issues with the VDR plug-in packages.
The Linux Video Disc Recorder (VDR) program itself is currently licensed
with either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later
version. Most of the plug-ins
On Tuesday 04 September 2007 11:12:56 Peter S Galbraith wrote:
Tatsuya Kinoshita [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think that even if distribution of *.elc file should be licensed
under GPLv3, *.el file under non-GPLv3 can be distributed, because
locally installation and byte-compilation are not
Peter S Galbraith [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
As I understand it, the GPL v3 is more strict then the GPL v2 and
thus is incompatible. Is that correct?
The interesting question isn't whether it's more strict (I don't
know how you'd measure that objectively).
GPLv3 does contain requirements not
Tobi [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Here comes the first question. If only the full GPL2 license text is
referenced, does this mean, that the plug-in is licensed GPL2-only
or GPL2 or any later?
What does the wording of the grant of license say? The text of the
license has no effect except in the
Ben Finney wrote:
What does the wording of the grant of license say?
There is no explicit grant of license. The problem is, that most of the
plug-ins are created out of a template from the VDR upstream sources.
And this template only contains:
See the file COPYING for license information. in
Tobi [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
There is no line saying This program is GPL2 or something
similar. Is this what you are referring to as grant of license?
That's what I mean, yes.
Does this mean, that all these plug-ins don't have a valid GPL
license at all?
Yes. Without explicit grant from
An .el source code file doing a 'require' or 'load' does not make the
source
code a derived work. It's like an #include ... statement in C source
code. Compiling it might make a derived work, but it's not a derived work
just because it mentions the name of a file it's asking a compiler to
Peter S Galbraith writes:
An .el source code file doing a 'require' or 'load' does not make the
source
code a derived work. It's like an #include ... statement in C source
code. Compiling it might make a derived work, but it's not a derived work
just because it mentions the name of a file
Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It is clearly absurd to say that a work written a year (or five
years) ago depends on a GPLv3-licensed version of emacs; there was
no such thing when the older work was written.
Note also that twisting one's definition of derived such that this
could be
13 matches
Mail list logo
