* Sam Hartman:
>> "Francesco" == Francesco Poli writes:
> Francesco> I am under the impression that a more correct way to
> Francesco> achieve the same results (free or non-free) would be to
> Francesco> create a different license, possibly reusing some parts
> Francesco> of
On Thu, 08 Sep 2022 23:32:34 -0600 Sam Hartman wrote:
[...]
> That's certainly what the FSF would prefer you do, yes.
> However, there are a few things to consider:
>
> 1) It's not clear that the FSF's copyright on the GPL allows you to
> borrow text from it for your license. I believe it does
> "Francesco" == Francesco Poli writes:
Francesco> I am under the impression that a more correct way to
Francesco> achieve the same results (free or non-free) would be to
Francesco> create a different license, possibly reusing some parts
Francesco> of the GNU GPL v2, but
On Thu, 08 Sep 2022 01:35:59 -0600 Sam Hartman wrote:
> > "Francesco" == Francesco Poli writes:
>
> Francesco> So licensing under the terms of the GNU GPL v2 and then
> Francesco> adding further restrictions creates a self-contradiction.
> Francesco> That does not seem a correct
* Samuel Henrique:
> So now having read a bit more about this whole thing.
>
> The GPL restrictions do seem quite similar to what the NPSL have,
> related to Derivative Works, have a look at this from the FSF
> website[0]:
> """
> What is the difference between an “aggregate” and other kinds of
>
> "Francesco" == Francesco Poli writes:
Francesco> So licensing under the terms of the GNU GPL v2 and then
Francesco> adding further restrictions creates a self-contradiction.
Francesco> That does not seem a correct way to apply the GPL...
No, it does not. That term--the term
On Sun, 04 Sep 2022 20:29:24 -0700 Walter Landry wrote:
[...]
> Covered Software is licensed to you under the terms of the GPL
> (Exhibit A), with all the exceptions, clarifications, and additions
> noted in this Main License Body. Where the terms in this Main License
> Body conflict in any way
On Mon, 05 Sep 2022 23:48:38 +0200 Hilko Bengen wrote:
[...]
> It has been suggested that upstream switch the
> license to AGPL3 instead, but nothing of the sort has happened and I
> don't expect such a change to happen anytime soon.
[...]
Speaking for myself: please, no.
Although the GNU
So now having read a bit more about this whole thing.
The GPL restrictions do seem quite similar to what the NPSL have,
related to Derivative Works, have a look at this from the FSF
website[0]:
"""
What is the difference between an “aggregate” and other kinds of
“modified versions”?
...
By
Hello all,
On Mon, 5 Sept 2022 at 23:17, Hilko Bengen wrote:
> My analysis posted there in March 2021 still stands: Upstream's broad
> definition about what constitutes a "derivative work" (a term that
> matters a lot in GPL 2) conflicts with the DFSG #9 "License Must Not
> Contaminate Other
* Samuel Henrique:
> Nmap has just released its version 7.93, and it comes with a new
> license, similar to what it used to be, but it raised people's
> attention so the license got more scrutiny than ever and that resulted
> in long threads with no broad consensus.
nmap 7.90 with a license
Samuel Henrique writes:
> Nmap has just released its version 7.93, and it comes with a new
> license, similar to what it used to be, but it raised people's
> attention so the license got more scrutiny than ever and that resulted
> in long threads with no broad consensus.
For the record, here is
Nmap has just released its version 7.93, and it comes with a new
license, similar to what it used to be, but it raised people's
attention so the license got more scrutiny than ever and that resulted
in long threads with no broad consensus.
There have been lots of discussions going on about it,
13 matches
Mail list logo
