Re: [DNG] Which license for UMENU2?

Quoting Steve Litt (sl...@troubleshooters.com): > I would *never* consider GPLvAnything+, because I would never agree to > anything I haven't yet seen. I have no way of knowing who will be in > charge of the FSF in ten or twenty years, or from whom they will be > taking money. But you _do_ know

Re: [DNG] Which license for UMENU2?

Quoting Steve Litt (sl...@troubleshooters.com): > All of you have also crystalized one of the factors that have pushed me > away from GPL: The requirements of displaying it. Which as licensor you are free to waive. Note footer at the bottom of http://linuxmafia.com/ssh/ as an example:

Re: [DNG] Which license for UMENU2?

Quoting Simon Hobson (li...@thehobsons.co.uk): > However, without a lot of work, doesn't the ability to link mean > pulling in some sort of interface file and "building in" that file to > your code ? Much depends on the particulars of a specific case, but in general the code elements used for

Re: [DNG] Which license for UMENU2?

Quoting Adam Borowski (kilob...@angband.pl): > There's none, either way. Exactly. On the other hand, there's a _great_ deal of caselaw about what does and does not constitute a derivative work. The criteria are quite clear (even if not mechanistic), having to do with the reuse of

Re: [DNG] Which license for UMENU2?

On Wed, 24 Aug 2016 17:14:45 +0100 KatolaZ wrote: > Yes, but with non-copyleft permissive licences nothing stops anybody > (either a contributor or a user or a company) from taking your work, > closing it, and redistributing it as proprietary software... Until very

Re: [DNG] Which license for UMENU2?

* On 2016 24 Aug 10:53 -0500, Steve Litt wrote: > Yes. I'm now considering GPLv3-only. > > I would *never* consider GPLvAnything+, because I would never agree to > anything I haven't yet seen. I have no way of knowing who will be in > charge of the FSF in ten or twenty years, or from whom they

Re: [DNG] Which license for UMENU2?

On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 11:47:02AM -0400, Steve Litt wrote: [cut] > > Hi KatolaZ, > > Thank you, and thank Peter Olson, for your inciteful and incisive > pointing out of facts. I'm now adding GPL3 to the list. And one thing > I've always yearned for about GPLv3 is the anti patent provisions. >

Re: [DNG] Which license for UMENU2?

On Wed, 24 Aug 2016 17:26:55 +0200 Adam Borowski wrote: > On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 09:32:30AM -0500, Jim Murphy wrote: > > The scripts I write I use GPLv2 only. "I" can change it later if I > > need to. > > This works only if you never, ever, accept any code contributions

Re: [DNG] Which license for UMENU2?

On 08/24/2016 06:47 PM, Steve Litt wrote: [snip] > And one thing I've always yearned for about GPLv3 is the anti patent > provisions. Software patents are the spawn of satan, and the entire > patent system is completely out of control (one click ordering my > aunt's hat). [snip] Also, at the

Re: [DNG] Which license for UMENU2?

On Wed, 24 Aug 2016 17:26:49 +0200 Svante Signell wrote: > On Wed, 2016-08-24 at 09:32 -0500, Jim Murphy wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 12:20 AM, Steve Litt > > wrote: > > >  > > > Any opinions on which to choose? > > Don't know if

Re: [DNG] Which license for UMENU2?

On Wed, 24 Aug 2016 09:29:00 +0100 KatolaZ wrote: > On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 01:43:25AM -0400, Steve Litt wrote: > > On Wed, 24 Aug 2016 01:31:18 -0400 (EDT) > > Peter Olson wrote: > > > > [cut] > > > > What complication don't you like about GPLv3+ ?

Re: [DNG] Which license for UMENU2?

On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 09:32:30AM -0500, Jim Murphy wrote: > Don't know if this would make any difference to you or not, but the > Linux kernel is released under the GPLv2 only license(AFAICT). I > remember there being quite a bit of debate about this when the > GPLv3 license was coming out. I

Re: [DNG] Which license for UMENU2?

On Wed, 2016-08-24 at 09:32 -0500, Jim Murphy wrote: > On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 12:20 AM, Steve Litt > wrote: > >  > > Any opinions on which to choose? > Don't know if this would make any difference to you or not, but the > Linux kernel is released under the GPLv2 only

Re: [DNG] eudev [was: vdev]

On Wed, 8/24/16, Brad Campbell wrote: Subject: Re: [DNG] eudev [was: vdev] To: dng@lists.dyne.org Date: Wednesday, August 24, 2016, 1:55 AM > On 24/08/16 13:57, Steve Litt wrote: >> On Wed, 24 Aug 2016 11:37:53 +0800

Re: [DNG] Which license for UMENU2?

On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 12:20 AM, Steve Litt wrote: > Hi all, > > I'm asking this question in a lot of places, but for sure I hold > Devuan's answer in high regard. > > I'm putting the finishing touches on UMENU2, to the point where I'm > ready to write the COPYING file

Re: [DNG] Which license for UMENU2?

On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 02:07:18AM -0700, Rick Moen wrote: > Quoting KatolaZ (kato...@freaknet.org): > > > Apart from that, it is a copyleft licence, which guarantees to users > > and developers the same 4 freedoms which inspired GPLv1 and > > GPLv2. Just remember that, for a formal reason, GPLv2

Re: [DNG] Which license for UMENU2?

Rick Moen wrote: > OK, please cite me even a single judge's opinion in any copyright case > that says that linking (e.g., dynamic linker calls to an ELF library) > automatically creates a derivative work based on the linked code (which > IIRC is the view expressed in the GPL

Re: [DNG] Which license for UMENU2?

On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 03:03:27AM -0700, Rick Moen wrote: > Quoting Adam Borowski (kilob...@angband.pl): > > > Your position is pretty fringe. > > OK, please cite me even a single judge's opinion in any copyright case > that says that linking (e.g., dynamic linker calls to an ELF library) >

Re: [DNG] Which license for UMENU2?

Quoting Adam Borowski (kilob...@angband.pl): > Your position is pretty fringe. OK, please cite me even a single judge's opinion in any copyright case that says that linking (e.g., dynamic linker calls to an ELF library) automatically creates a derivative work based on the linked code (which IIRC

Re: [DNG] Which license for UMENU2?

On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 02:07:18AM -0700, Rick Moen wrote: > Quoting KatolaZ (kato...@freaknet.org): > > > Apart from that, it is a copyleft licence, which guarantees to users > > and developers the same 4 freedoms which inspired GPLv1 and > > GPLv2. Just remember that, for a formal reason, GPLv2

Re: [DNG] Which license for UMENU2?

Quoting KatolaZ (kato...@freaknet.org): > Apart from that, it is a copyleft licence, which guarantees to users > and developers the same 4 freedoms which inspired GPLv1 and > GPLv2. Just remember that, for a formal reason, GPLv2 and GPLv3 are > link-incompatible. In fact, each of them specifies

Re: [DNG] Which license for UMENU2?

Quoting Steve Litt (sl...@troubleshooters.com): > Hi all, > > I'm asking this question in a lot of places, but for sure I hold > Devuan's answer in high regard. > > I'm putting the finishing touches on UMENU2, to the point where I'm > ready to write the COPYING file and mark the Python files

Re: [DNG] Which license for UMENU2?

On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 01:20:24AM -0400, Steve Litt wrote: > I'm putting the finishing touches on UMENU2, to the point where I'm > ready to write the COPYING file and mark the Python files with a > license. I'm considering two licenses: > > * Expat license:

Re: [DNG] Which license for UMENU2?

On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 01:43:25AM -0400, Steve Litt wrote: > On Wed, 24 Aug 2016 01:31:18 -0400 (EDT) > Peter Olson wrote: > [cut] > > What complication don't you like about GPLv3+ ? > > I just briefly reread it, and didn't see an glaring problems. > However, I'd need to

Re: [DNG] eudev [was: vdev]

On 24/08/16 13:57, Steve Litt wrote: On Wed, 24 Aug 2016 11:37:53 +0800 Brad Campbell wrote: On 24/08/16 11:13, Steve Litt wrote: On Tue, 23 Aug 2016 21:47:41 -0400 Clarke Sideroad wrote: I think kdbus is dead due to the bad press, but

Re: [DNG] Which license for UMENU2?

Hi, On 08/24/2016 07:57 AM, Steve Litt wrote: On August 24, 2016 at 1:20 AM Steve Litt > > wrote: > > [...] > > >A couple notes: The above Expat URL says Expat license is GPL > >compatible. I don't like GPLv3 because it's too

Re: [DNG] eudev [was: vdev]

Le 24/08/2016 01:29, Adam Borowski a écrit : [~/linux]$ git fetch linus remote: Counting objects: 795, done. remote: Compressing objects: 100% (481/481), done. remote: Total 795 (delta 477), reused 517 (delta 311) Receiving objects: 100% (795/795), 1.54 MiB | 660.00 KiB/s, done. Resolving