Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
GPL 3 is not at the stage to ask for public comments.
That was one question. The other, and more important, question was:
Do you happen to have any idea as to how much time will be given for
community review?
Thomas
That was one question. The other, and more important, question was:
Do you happen to have any idea as to how much time will be given for
community review?
Please remember that this is not a cross examination; you are free
to ask questions, but how and whether I respond to them is my
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Please remember that this is not a cross examination; you are free
to ask questions, but how and whether I respond to them is my decision.
Of course, but please also remember that if you completely ignore a
question, people will need to try and guess
On Mon, 16 Jun 2003 13:57:11 -0400
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That was one question. The other, and more important, question was:
Do you happen to have any idea as to how much time will be given for
community review?
Please remember that this is not a cross
The idea of writing a single license for both software and
documentation (i.e., for content) is a good one. Perhaps
this could be done in GPL version 4. I would hope that in
extending it, the beauty of the current GPL is preserved.
What is beautiful about the GPL is that it grants the licensee
GPL 3 is not at the stage to ask for public comments.
Can someone remind me how exactly the license above is incompatible with
the GNU GPL?
Each one is a copyleft. The GPL says the combined work must be under
the GPL. The simple license says the combined work must be under that
license. Both cannot be true at once.
On Saturday, Jun 14, 2003, at 07:03 US/Eastern, Richard Braakman
That's a lot easier than Here's a Debian CD. And here's my solemn
promise to provide source CDs for this Debian version to anyone who
asks for the next three years. Please wait while I go buy a CD
burner.
(Note that 2(c) is
RMS said:
GPL 3 is not at the stage to ask for public comments.
Rumor has it that it will contain loads of stuff which Debian considers
non-free. This is a *problem*.
The FDL public comment period resulted in *no* significant changes due
to the public comments.
RMS has declared that he has
RMS said:
Reiser's statement was inaccurate. For GPL version 3 we are
considering requirements for preserving certain limited author
information in the source code, and making explicit that other
GPL-compatible licenses that are present on parts of the code cannot
be removed from the source, but
On Sun, Jun 15, 2003 at 08:10:12PM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote:
I look forward to read a draft of the GPL v3, since Hans Reiser did
mention that the equivalent of 'Invariant Sections' would be added
in the forthcoming GPL v3.
Reiser's statement was inaccurate. For GPL version
On Fri, 2003-06-13 at 22:02, Walter Landry wrote:
d) Accompany it with information as to how to obtain, for a charge
no more than the cost of physically performing source
distribution, corresponding source. (This alternative is allowed
only for noncommercial distribution)
On Fri, Jun 13, 2003 at 06:02:56PM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote:
For instance, here is the license we used for most GNU manuals before
the GFDL:
Permission is granted to make and distribute verbatim copies of this
manual provided the copyright notice and this permission notice are
On Sat, Jun 14, 2003 at 01:31:05AM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
On Fri, 2003-06-13 at 22:02, Walter Landry wrote:
d) Accompany it with information as to how to obtain, for a charge
no more than the cost of physically performing source
distribution, corresponding source.
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Can someone remind me how exactly the license above is incompatible with
the GNU GPL? Material under this license seems as miscible with a work
under the GNU GPL as materials under the 2- or 3-clause BSD licenses
are.
Provided that the entire
On Sat, Jun 14, 2003 at 10:09:00AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Can someone remind me how exactly the license above is incompatible with
the GNU GPL? Material under this license seems as miscible with a work
under the GNU GPL as materials
Debian, like everyone, would love a single unified license. But
that's not the problem per-se. The problem is that we want all the
licenses to be free by a single definition. That some of the licenses
will be incompatible with each other is a problem, but not one that
impacts freedom
On Fri, 13 Jun 2003 18:02:56 -0400
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
large part of original message excluded because it's not relevant to
my question
I intend to make the effort some day, but first I have to finish GPL
version 3, which faces other difficult questions.
There have
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I intend to make the effort some day, but first I have to finish GPL
version 3, which faces other difficult questions.
I have recently come to the conclusion that making a unified license
is the only reasonable course left. There was much talk on this
19 matches
Mail list logo
