If linking is changing, that would seem to make licenses that say you can
distribute unmodified binaries only impossible--you'd only be able to
distribute binaries supplied by the author.
Not necessarily--these things are not as rigid as symbolic logic.
It's a matter of what intention
The first paragraph of the Vim license says that an unmodified Vim can
be distributed without restrictions. This is GPL compatible, right?
At this point, I am having trouble being sure. It depends on
questions which perhaps could be argued in different ways.
If you want to make a
That's a good thing. But I don't want to wait too long with the new Vim
license, hopefully Vim 6.1 will be released soon.
If you're happy with GPL version 2, then you can make the license
GPL-compatible now.
Also, some software
Richard Stallman wrote:
The first paragraph of the Vim license says that an unmodified Vim can
be distributed without restrictions. This is GPL compatible, right?
At this point, I am having trouble being sure. It depends on
questions which perhaps could be argued in different
The GPL requires the freedom to be *allowed* to distribute the software
to anyone. The company rules forbid the distribution of the changes to
parties outside of the company. These two rules conflict.
It is not really a conflict. These copies belong to the company and
have never
I would rather see a note that this is not
the original Vim but a modified version. But I suppose I can't require
that without becoming GPL-incompatible...
I'm working on changing the GPL to make it possible to add certain
requirements along those lines. You might want to wait to
Branden Robinson wrote:
Well, I can see an easy way around this:
Don't ship Vim such that it tries to link against the gpm library by
default. This would be wrong anyway since Vim is not GPL'ed, and this
would encourage people to violate the license on the GPM library.
That's not
Richard Stallman wrote:
The GPL requires the freedom to be *allowed* to distribute the software
to anyone. The company rules forbid the distribution of the changes to
parties outside of the company. These two rules conflict.
It is not really a conflict. These copies belong
Richard Stallman wrote:
What if I have a copy with no changes at all, and want to distribute it
linked against GPM? I have to make a change (so it's a modified Vim)?
Linking against GPM counts as making a change in the program as a whole.
So that does not raise an issue.
Richard Stallman wrote:
I would rather see a note that this is not
the original Vim but a modified version. But I suppose I can't require
that without becoming GPL-incompatible...
I'm working on changing the GPL to make it possible to add certain
requirements along those
On Thu, 10 Jan 2002 12:26:19 +0100
Bram Moolenaar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
OK, I now understand that the company can be considered to be one
licensee, thus passing copies around within the company is not
distributing. Thus GPL'ed software can be modified for use inside the
company. The only
On Wed, Jan 09, 2002 at 03:04:02PM -0700, Richard Stallman wrote:
What if I have a copy with no changes at all, and want to distribute it
linked against GPM? I have to make a change (so it's a modified Vim)?
Linking against GPM counts as making a change in the program as a whole.
So
On Thu, Jan 10, 2002 at 12:26:19PM +0100, Bram Moolenaar wrote:
The first paragraph of the Vim license says that an unmodified Vim can
be distributed without restrictions. This is GPL compatible, right?
Thus I would think an unmodified Vim can be distributed under the GPL,
so long as you
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If linking is changing, that would seem to make licenses that say you can
distribute unmodified binaries only impossible--you'd only be able to
distribute binaries supplied by the author.
Quite right. I have no idea what those licenses mean, but I've
On Thu, Jan 10, 2002 at 03:03:45PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
If linking is changing, that would seem to make licenses that say you can
distribute unmodified binaries only impossible--you'd only be able to
distribute binaries supplied by the author.
Quite right. I have no idea
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, Jan 10, 2002 at 03:03:45PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
If linking is changing, that would seem to make licenses that say you
can
distribute unmodified binaries only impossible--you'd only be able to
distribute binaries supplied
On Thu, Jan 10, 2002 at 07:10:30PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Thu, Jan 10, 2002 at 03:03:45PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
What they *mean* seems fairly obvious to me: you can recompile the source
(presumably for different architectures or library versions), and
distribute those
Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Tue, Jan 08, 2002 at 11:24:15AM +0100, Bram Moolenaar wrote:
This is in the new draft:
e) When the GNU General Public License applies to the changes, you
can
distribute the modified Vim under the GNU General Public License.
I'll send out
Mark Wielaard wrote:
On Tue, 2002-01-08 at 11:24, Bram Moolenaar wrote:
Richard Stallman wrote:
In section 2:
a) You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices
stating that you changed the files and the date of any change.
The problem with this is that
On Wed, Jan 09, 2002 at 10:54:30AM +0100, Bram Moolenaar wrote:
e) When the GNU General Public License applies to the changes, you
can
distribute the modified Vim under the GNU General Public
License.
What if I have a copy with no changes at all, and want to
Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Wed, Jan 09, 2002 at 10:54:30AM +0100, Bram Moolenaar wrote:
e) When the GNU General Public License applies to the changes,
you can
distribute the modified Vim under the GNU General Public
License.
What if I have a copy with no
On Wed, Jan 09, 2002 at 04:28:57PM +0100, Bram Moolenaar wrote:
But if there were no changes, e) isn't an option, so we're not allowed
to change it to the GPL, so GPM's license restricts it.
That's not a problem, because without changes the first paragraph
applies, and it's compatible with
What if I have a copy with no changes at all, and want to distribute it
linked against GPM? I have to make a change (so it's a modified Vim)?
Linking against GPM counts as making a change in the program as a whole.
So that does not raise an issue.
However, one thing that should be noted
This is wholly satisfactory to me, at least. To address one of your
other concerns, I don't think it would hurt to add the following
sentence:
You are encouraged to license your changes under the Vim license as
well, and submit them to the Vim maintainer for possible
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What this means is that it is indirectly self-contradictory to say
You can distribute modified versions under the GPL but not the
original version.
Ah, yes this is a good point often missed.
Another way to put it is that free software must permit
2) A user of the modified Vim must be able to see that it was modified,
at
least in the version information and in the intro screen.
The GPL has a similar kind of requirement, but this is more specific,
hence not GPL-compatible.
I could not find the similar
Because the company I worked for does not allow my work to be distributed
outside of the company, and that conflicts with the GPL.
This is a complete misunderstanding of the GPL. It does not require
anyone to release modified versions at all.
Hmm, I could add a 3e, which explicitly says that distribution under the
GPL is allowed, but only if the changes are also under the GPL license.
That would at least solve the problem of linking with the GPM library.
That might work--I'd have to see the precise wording before I could
Richard Stallman wrote:
Because the company I worked for does not allow my work to be distributed
outside of the company, and that conflicts with the GPL.
This is a complete misunderstanding of the GPL. It does not require
anyone to release modified versions at all.
The GPL
Richard Stallman wrote:
2) A user of the modified Vim must be able to see that it was
modified, at
least in the version information and in the intro screen.
The GPL has a similar kind of requirement, but this is more specific,
hence not
Richard Stallman wrote:
Hmm, I could add a 3e, which explicitly says that distribution under the
GPL is allowed, but only if the changes are also under the GPL license.
That would at least solve the problem of linking with the GPM library.
That might work--I'd have to see the
Hi,
On Tue, 2002-01-08 at 11:24, Bram Moolenaar wrote:
Richard Stallman wrote:
In section 2:
a) You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices
stating that you changed the files and the date of any change.
The problem with this is that a user of Vim may never
On Tue, Jan 08, 2002 at 11:24:15AM +0100, Bram Moolenaar wrote:
This is in the new draft:
e) When the GNU General Public License applies to the changes, you can
distribute the modified Vim under the GNU General Public License.
I'll send out a new draft when some other
On Tue, Jan 08, 2002 at 11:24:15AM +0100, Bram Moolenaar wrote:
This is in the new draft:
e) When the GNU General Public License applies to the changes, you can
distribute the modified Vim under the GNU General Public License.
This is wholly satisfactory to me, at least. To
On Tue, Jan 08, 2002 at 11:24:14AM +0100, Bram Moolenaar wrote:
Richard Stallman wrote:
Because the company I worked for does not allow my work to be
distributed
outside of the company, and that conflicts with the GPL.
This is a complete misunderstanding of the GPL. It does
Thomas Bushnell wrote:
Bram Moolenaar [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ah, so Debian has written and signed permission from all copyright
holders? Don't think so... I don't know how valid the copyright and
license remarks in the files are. There are quite a few files without a
license
Richard Stallman wrote:
c) Provide the changes, including source code, with every copy of the
modified Vim you distribute. This may be done in the form of a
context diff. You can chose what license to use for new code you
add, so long as it does
Richard Stallman wrote:
I have attempted to add the possibility to allow people to distribute a
modified Vim, under the condition that they include the source code.
This is a free software license, and I think it is better than the
current Vim license. So I encourage you to switch
Glenn Maynard wrote:
As I already said, it's allowed to compile, but you might not be allowed
to distribute the result. That's actually the main problem of the GPL I
don't like. But the dual-licensing would solve that.
Which is it, linkable-but-not-distributable or
Richard Stallman wrote:
2) A user of the modified Vim must be able to see that it was modified,
at
least in the version information and in the intro screen.
The GPL has a similar kind of requirement, but this is more specific,
hence not GPL-compatible.
I could not find
On Mon, Jan 07, 2002 at 12:58:44PM +0100, Bram Moolenaar wrote:
2) A user of the modified Vim must be able to see that it was modified,
at
least in the version information and in the intro screen.
The GPL has a similar kind of requirement, but this is more specific,
hence
On Mon, Jan 07, 2002 at 12:15:39PM +0100, Bram Moolenaar wrote:
The question is what licenses I could use for modified versions of
Vim. Specifically, could I release a modified version of Vim under
the GPL? A license is GPL-compatible if it permits that; otherwise,
it is not
Whoops. Botched a couple CC's. I'll forward them.
On Mon, Jan 07, 2002 at 12:15:38PM +0100, Bram Moolenaar wrote:
I'm a bit confused here:
d) When you have a modified Vim which includes changes, as mentioned
After this comes under c).
At the time I quoted this, I had been reading
On Mon, Jan 07, 2002 at 12:15:38PM +0100, Bram Moolenaar wrote:
I think you better use the principle that Vim comes as a package, and
the license applies to the whole package, unless stated otherwise in
individual files.
I agree, just as the copyright notice at the beginning of a book applies
Glenn Maynard wrote:
Isn't it clear that this is about further distributing a modified Vim as
was created as mentioned under c)?
Does this mean that you can only use 3c for your own changes; and 3d for
other peoples' changes? That's ... odd.
Yes, because only the person who makes the
Bram Moolenaar [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thomas Bushnell wrote:
Bram Moolenaar [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ah, so Debian has written and signed permission from all copyright
holders? Don't think so... I don't know how valid the copyright and
license remarks in the files are.
Another problem that I'm worried about is that many people will think
Vim _is_ GPL. It will be mentioned in lists in magazines and on web
sites. We would have to check and request correction where it's wrong.
Perhaps it would help to give a good name to the dual license. GPL++
On Mon, Jan 07, 2002 at 02:37:04PM +0100, Bram Moolenaar wrote:
Hmm, this only says the files must include a notice. The executable
might not display the notice, thus a user might not be able to see he is
using a modified version.
This clause 2) was not in the previous version of the Vim
On Mon, Jan 07, 2002 at 02:37:04PM +0100, Bram Moolenaar wrote:
Does this mean that you can only use 3c for your own changes; and 3d for
other peoples' changes? That's ... odd.
Yes, because only the person who makes the changes can decide what
license to use for them. People further
On Sat, Jan 05, 2002 at 02:16:32PM +0100, Bram Moolenaar wrote:
I don't have a problem with that. It's just that it must be clear that
this modified version of Vim (or compiled with a GPL'ed library) has
more restrictions than the Vim license mentions, since the GPL applies
as well (since it
Branden Robinson wrote:
Can you explain again why you don't want to dual-license Vim under the
GPL and some other license?
As I recall, your objection to the GPL is not that it places too few
restrictions on Vim, but that it places too many on it. (You feel it is
too hard for companies
On Sun, Jan 06, 2002 at 12:46:51PM +0100, Bram Moolenaar wrote:
Not completely true. The GPL does allow distributing a modified version
without source code, but with some way to obtain the source code
somewhere. My draft license doesn't allow that, it requires that the
changes are always
Bram Moolenaar [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Including the GPL actually makes it a lot more complicated. It's hard
to read and even harder to understand. How often does RMS have to
correct wrong ideas about the GPL? It's not so clear what the GPL
really means. I can't say I fully understand
Branden Robinson wrote:
[many parts cut away]
The GPL does not allow adding changes that use a license
incompatible with it.
No license allows doing things with a program that are incompatible with
its license. This is a tautology. The relevant questions are: Does the
restrictions
I have attempted to add the possibility to allow people to distribute a
modified Vim, under the condition that they include the source code.
This is a free software license, and I think it is better than the
current Vim license. So I encourage you to switch to this license.
It is not
From Vim's point of view, the entire GPL'ed code constitute an
addition (a special case of a change), so it is all subject to the
conditions you apply to changes.
If you want to exempt, say, the addition of library code from your
conditions on modifications in general, you
c) Provide the changes, including source code, with every copy of the
modified Vim you distribute. This may be done in the form of a
context diff. You can chose what license to use for new code you
add, so long as it does not restrict others
(Replies from multiple messages.)
On Sun, Jan 06, 2002 at 12:46:51PM +0100, Bram Moolenaar wrote:
Including the GPL actually makes it a lot more complicated. It's hard
to read and even harder to understand. How often does RMS have to
correct wrong ideas about the GPL? It's not so clear what
Scripsit Bram Moolenaar [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Henning Makholm wrote:
Yes. Thus if you add code and put it under the GPL, then the GPL would
apply to the whole (if I understand the GPL correctly). So the question
is if this would cause a conflict with the Vim license, which would
prohibit you
Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Bram Moolenaar [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Henning Makholm wrote:
Yes. Thus if you add code and put it under the GPL, then the GPL would
apply to the whole (if I understand the GPL correctly). So the question
is if this would cause a conflict with the Vim
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) wrote:
Bram Moolenaar [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I have attempted to add the possibility to allow people to distribute a
modified Vim, under the condition that they include the source code.
This makes it possible to distribute it in a (more or less)
Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If the license were GPL-compatible, I could license my changes under
the GPL, and never talk to the Vim maintainer. However, one of the
things that Bram wants to be able to do is relicense the whole thing
under a proprietary license. This is exactly
Thomas Bushnell wrote:
Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If the license were GPL-compatible, I could license my changes under
the GPL, and never talk to the Vim maintainer. However, one of the
things that Bram wants to be able to do is relicense the whole thing
under a
Branden Robinson wrote:
Thanks very much for putting effort into this, Mr. Moolenaar. I know a
lot of people don't find it easy to deal with paranoid license freaks.
Thanks for taking a good look at the new text. I'll include most of
your suggestions.
You are also allowed to include
Scripsit Bram Moolenaar [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Thomas Bushnell wrote:
Ah yes, I missed that last part. So it does seem to me that it is not
GPL compatible, as long as it wants to reserve the right to include
changes in future vim distributions, which themselves might be
released under
Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Bram Moolenaar [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Thomas Bushnell wrote:
Ah yes, I missed that last part. So it does seem to me that it is not
GPL compatible, as long as it wants to reserve the right to include
changes in future vim distributions, which themselves
I have attempted to add the possibility to allow people to distribute a
modified Vim, under the condition that they include the source code.
This makes it possible to distribute it in a (more or less) closed group
of people and not having to provide a copy to the maintainer (that's
me). For
Bram Moolenaar [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I have attempted to add the possibility to allow people to distribute a
modified Vim, under the condition that they include the source code.
This makes it possible to distribute it in a (more or less) closed group
of people and not having to provide a
On Thu, Jan 03, 2002 at 11:14:12PM +0100, Bram Moolenaar wrote:
I have attempted to add the possibility to allow people to distribute a
modified Vim, under the condition that they include the source code.
This makes it possible to distribute it in a (more or less) closed group
of people and
69 matches
Mail list logo
