27;s not licensed LGPLv3-only. This outcome is indeed
different from the outcome with LGPLv2.1.
>> Josselin mentions the risks that might arise in specifying an "or
>> later" license. They are real, but can be mitigated via the proxy
>> clause in the (L)GPLv3.
>>
>From Christian Fredrik Kalager Schaller on Friday, 09 July, 2010:
>On Fri, 2010-07-09 at 16:53 +0200, Maciej Piechotka wrote:
>> On 09/07/10 16:37, Christian Fredrik Kalager Schaller wrote:
>> > I would strongly prefer glib to not change its license, we are keeping
>> > the lgplv2.1 in GStreamer,
> Not true! For example, when you assign to the FSF, the papers you sign
> contain a number of guarantees. From an old version of the assignment
> papers (you should contact the FSF if you are considering using this
> language, as it might have been updated):
>
> 4. FSF agrees that all distrib
r"
license. They are real, but can be mitigated via the proxy clause in the
(L)GPLv3.
If the Program specifies that a proxy can decide which future
versions of the GNU General Public License can be used, that proxy's
public statement of acceptance of a version permanently a
Hi;
> Le mardi 06 juillet 2010 à 09:00 -0400, Ryan Lortie a écrit :
> > Anybody who has an application that is GPLv2-only and has accepted
> > enough contributions that it has become an unreasonable proposition
> > to relicense has made a significant mistake.
>
> Anyone who licenses his work unde
Le mardi 06 juillet 2010 à 09:00 -0400, Ryan Lortie a écrit :
> Anybody who has an application that is GPLv2-only and has accepted
> enough contributions that it has become an unreasonable proposition to
> relicense has made a significant mistake.
Anyone who licenses his work under a license “or l
Paul Cutler told me about this thread and suggested it might be useful
if I commented. I think most of the issues have been well covered in
the thread; I nevertheless quote some of the points below and make a few
comments that hopefully might help to bookend the discussion.
Juanjo Marin wrote at
On Fri, 2010-07-09 at 16:53 +0200, Maciej Piechotka wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: RIPEMD160
>
> On 09/07/10 16:37, Christian Fredrik Kalager Schaller wrote:
> > I would strongly prefer glib to not change its license, we are keeping
> > the lgplv2.1 in GStreamer, partly becaus
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
On 09/07/10 16:37, Christian Fredrik Kalager Schaller wrote:
> I would strongly prefer glib to not change its license, we are keeping
> the lgplv2.1 in GStreamer, partly because a lot of people making
> products with GStreamer prefer it over lgplv
I would strongly prefer glib to not change its license, we are keeping
the lgplv2.1 in GStreamer, partly because a lot of people making
products with GStreamer prefer it over lgplv3. If glib switched under us
it would make our license stability a bit of a joke. If someone wants to
use glib under th
On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 19:45 +0200, Christian Persch wrote:
> I can't be the only one who was excited about discovering there's a
> LGPL3+ pdf library out there! I work a bit on evince, and I had never
> heard about it. However, the excitement was brief, and terminated by
> actually checking out th
hi Matthias,
On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 14:01 -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote:
> I think any attempts to relicense the bigger platform libraries like
> gtk or glib would end like the dbus relicensing efforts.
We don't need anyone's permission to change the licence when the current
licence includes "or at
On 07/08/2010 01:45 PM, Christian Persch wrote:
> I can't be the only one who was excited about discovering there's a
> LGPL3+ pdf library out there! I work a bit on evince, and I had never
> heard about it. However, the excitement was brief, and terminated by
> actually checking out the code...
S
On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 10:48 AM, Ryan Lortie wrote:
> hi Everyone,
> We have 3.0 upon us now, so I guess we should make a choice one way or
> another.
I think any attempts to relicense the bigger platform libraries like
gtk or glib would end like the dbus relicensing efforts.
___
Hi;
> > The problem is not only with third-party apps that use the platform.
> > There are also some significant GPLv2 only libraries that GNOME apps
> > may want to use. As examples, Poppler and ClamAV come to my mind.
>
> Incidentally, this is one of the major reasons that GNU PDF was made a
>
Hello,
On Tue 06 Jul 2010 14:54, Holger Berndt writes:
> On Tue, 06 Jul 2010 09:00:09 -0400 Ryan Lortie wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 2010-07-06 at 09:26 +0200, Vincent Untz wrote:
>> > Do you feel okay with the idea of allowing proprietary apps to use
>> > our platform but not GPLv2 apps?
>>
>> In short
El mar, 06-07-2010 a las 12:32 -0500, Ted Gould escribió:
> On Tue, 2010-07-06 at 13:17 -0400, Ryan Lortie wrote:
> > It's the GPLv2 in the program code that states "you can't link this
> > against anything other than GPLv2 code".
> >
> > Nothing we could add to the library licence (other than du
On Tue, 2010-07-06 at 13:17 -0400, Ryan Lortie wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-07-06 at 12:12 -0500, Ted Gould wrote:
> > IANAL but I'm
> > curious if a "standard exception" couldn't be drafted for LGPLv3 to
> > allow linking with GPLv2 programs. Per
On 06/07/10 18:17, Ryan Lortie wrote:
hi Ted,
On Tue, 2010-07-06 at 12:12 -0500, Ted Gould wrote:
IANAL but I'm
curious if a "standard exception" couldn't be drafted for LGPLv3 to
allow linking with GPLv2 programs. Perhaps with work,
hi Ted,
On Tue, 2010-07-06 at 12:12 -0500, Ted Gould wrote:
> IANAL but I'm
> curious if a "standard exception" couldn't be drafted for LGPLv3 to
> allow linking with GPLv2 programs. Perhaps with work, that could be
> GNOME policy going fo
On Tue, 2010-07-06 at 09:34 -0400, William Jon McCann wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 9:00 AM, Ryan Lortie wrote:
> > Anybody who has an application that is GPLv2-only and has accepted
> > enough contributions that it has become an unreasonable proposition to
> > relicense has made a significant m
On Tue, 06 Jul 2010 16:01:54 +0200
Steve Frécinaux wrote:
> On 07/06/2010 03:00 PM, Ryan Lortie wrote:
> > hi Vincent,
> >
> > On Tue, 2010-07-06 at 09:26 +0200, Vincent Untz wrote:
> >> Do you feel okay with the idea of allowing proprietary apps to use our
> >> platform but not GPLv2 apps?
> >
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
On 06/07/10 15:12, j...@jsschmid.de wrote:
> Hi!
>
>> hi Vincent,
>>
>> On Tue, 2010-07-06 at 09:26 +0200, Vincent Untz wrote:
>>> Do you feel okay with the idea of allowing proprietary apps to use our
>>> platform but not GPLv2 apps?
>>
>> In sh
Le mardi 06 juillet 2010 à 13:49 +, j...@jsschmid.de a écrit :
> Hi!
>
> > At the point that your application is used with a LGPLv3 library then it
> > would conceptually be 'upgraded' to GPLv3 at that time (so that the
> > GPLv2 clause preventing linking with LGPLv3 disappears). This doesn't
On 07/06/2010 03:00 PM, Ryan Lortie wrote:
hi Vincent,
On Tue, 2010-07-06 at 09:26 +0200, Vincent Untz wrote:
Do you feel okay with the idea of allowing proprietary apps to use our
platform but not GPLv2 apps?
In short, yes.
Can't the platform libraries of gnome be considered as a developme
On Tue, 06 Jul 2010 09:00:09 -0400 Ryan Lortie wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-07-06 at 09:26 +0200, Vincent Untz wrote:
> > Do you feel okay with the idea of allowing proprietary apps to use
> > our platform but not GPLv2 apps?
>
> In short, yes.
>
> Anybody who has an application that is GPLv2-only and
Hi!
> At the point that your application is used with a LGPLv3 library then it
> would conceptually be 'upgraded' to GPLv3 at that time (so that the
> GPLv2 clause preventing linking with LGPLv3 disappears). This doesn't
> mean that you have to change the licence of existing code -- you just
> ke
Hi,
Le mardi 06 juillet 2010, à 09:00 -0400, Ryan Lortie a écrit :
> hi Vincent,
>
> On Tue, 2010-07-06 at 09:26 +0200, Vincent Untz wrote:
> > Do you feel okay with the idea of allowing proprietary apps to use our
> > platform but not GPLv2 apps?
>
> In short, yes.
>
> Anybody who has an appli
Hey Ryan,
On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 9:00 AM, Ryan Lortie wrote:
> hi Vincent,
>
> On Tue, 2010-07-06 at 09:26 +0200, Vincent Untz wrote:
>> Do you feel okay with the idea of allowing proprietary apps to use our
>> platform but not GPLv2 apps?
>
> In short, yes.
>
> Anybody who has an application tha
Le mardi 06 juillet 2010, à 09:26 -0400, Ryan Lortie a écrit :
> On Tue, 2010-07-06 at 13:12 +, j...@jsschmid.de wrote:
> > Well, while I guess all my modules are LGPL/GPLv2+ would that still
> > prevent me from linking against LGPLv3 things if I don't convert them to
> > GPLv3?
>
> No.
>
> A
On Tue, 2010-07-06 at 13:12 +, j...@jsschmid.de wrote:
> Well, while I guess all my modules are LGPL/GPLv2+ would that still
> prevent me from linking against LGPLv3 things if I don't convert them to
> GPLv3?
No.
At the point that your application is used with a LGPLv3 library then it
would c
Hi!
> hi Vincent,
>
> On Tue, 2010-07-06 at 09:26 +0200, Vincent Untz wrote:
>> Do you feel okay with the idea of allowing proprietary apps to use our
>> platform but not GPLv2 apps?
>
> In short, yes.
>
> Anybody who has an application that is GPLv2-only and has accepted
> enough contributions th
hi Vincent,
On Tue, 2010-07-06 at 09:26 +0200, Vincent Untz wrote:
> Do you feel okay with the idea of allowing proprietary apps to use our
> platform but not GPLv2 apps?
In short, yes.
Anybody who has an application that is GPLv2-only and has accepted
enough contributions that it has become an
Le lundi 05 juillet 2010, à 21:58 -0400, Ryan Lortie a écrit :
> hi Vincent,
>
> On Mon, 2010-07-05 at 17:18 +0200, Vincent Untz wrote:
> > It's worth thinking really hard before moving to LGPLv3 (at least; not
> > sure about GPLv3): LGPLv3 is incompatible with GPLv2, according to the
> > FSF; tha
hi Vincent,
On Mon, 2010-07-05 at 17:18 +0200, Vincent Untz wrote:
> It's worth thinking really hard before moving to LGPLv3 (at least; not
> sure about GPLv3): LGPLv3 is incompatible with GPLv2, according to the
> FSF; that's a major issue, and, IMHO, this doesn't go well with our
> philosophy of
On Mon, 2010-07-05 at 17:18 +0200, Vincent Untz wrote:
> Le lundi 05 juillet 2010, à 10:48 -0400, Ryan Lortie a écrit :
> > hi Everyone,
> >
> > I recently received an email from a company in our ecosystem asking me
> > to relicense a smallish piece of code from GPLv3 to (L)GPLv2.
> >
> > I'm not
Le lundi 05 juillet 2010, à 10:48 -0400, Ryan Lortie a écrit :
> hi Everyone,
>
> I recently received an email from a company in our ecosystem asking me
> to relicense a smallish piece of code from GPLv3 to (L)GPLv2.
>
> I'm not really interested in inciting a flamewar on the topic or
> anything,
hi Everyone,
I recently received an email from a company in our ecosystem asking me
to relicense a smallish piece of code from GPLv3 to (L)GPLv2.
I'm not really interested in inciting a flamewar on the topic or
anything, but I'm wondering how people feel, in general about the
licensing direction
38 matches
Mail list logo
