> However, the license on individual source files stands and those may
> be reused in other GPLv2-only programs.
It's because of this that the FSF is pushing GPL3 for their projects.
___
geda-dev mailing list
geda-dev@moria.seul.org
http://www.seul.or
> FWIW, Debian's view is that the system library exception is not
> useful in the case of open source application software running on an
> open source OS.
Having gone through this for DJGPP, which is itself a system
library...
The FSF's view is that applications always require some system
librar
On Wed, Aug 08, 2007 at 08:11:58AM +0100, Peter TB Brett wrote:
> If all of the contributors have said that "you may choose to license this
> work
> under the GPL v2 or any later version", then you can do exactly that,
> copyright assignment or not. They've already given you permission to
> di
On Tue, Aug 07, 2007 at 10:50:59PM -0400, DJ Delorie wrote:
> The FSF is pushing GPL3 *hard*. That means it will become harder to
> mix packages; for example, geda linked with GPL3 libraries *is* GPL3
> at that point; GPL3 is not compatible with GPL2 (the other way is
> compatible). Fortunately f
On Wednesday 08 August 2007 04:35:55 DJ Delorie wrote:
> > Regardless of all this, it is unclear to me whether or not
> > permission is needed from all the copyright owner's for such a change
> > (please don't answer this unless you have an _explicit_ statement from
> > the GPL or the FSF FAQ t
> I routinely look at the copyright holder as I work on various geda based
> files. I have yet to see anyone claim any copyright ownership other
> then Ales (though I know others have contributed) PCB is even worse...
> DJ do you have a copyright in there some place?
On pcb's files I create, ye
I routinely look at the copyright holder as I work on various geda based
files. I have yet to see anyone claim any copyright ownership other
then Ales (though I know others have contributed) PCB is even worse...
DJ do you have a copyright in there some place? This is more of a legal
issue but if o
> Regardless of all this, it is unclear to me whether or not
> permission is needed from all the copyright owner's for such a change
> (please don't answer this unless you have an _explicit_ statement from
> the GPL or the FSF FAQ that isn't contradicted elsewhere).
Well, IANAL but the Linu
[snip]
>The FSF is pushing GPL3 *hard*. That means it will become harder to
[snip]
Regardless of all this, it is unclear to me whether or not
permission is needed from all the copyright owner's for such a change
(please don't answer this unless you have an _explicit_ statement from
the GP
> It is already under the GPL with the clause "either version 2 of the
> License, or (at your option) any later version."
Some cautions...
If someone *does* distribute a copy under GPL3, and someone else
modifies that copy, the modifications are under GPL3, not GPL2+. We
may not be able to use
[snip]
I am not planning on explicitly changing gEDA/gaf's license to GPLv3.
It is already under the GPL with the clause "either version 2 of the
License, or (at your option) any later version."
-Ales
_
Let me add to my previous response...
For geda/pcb, I don't think it matters much which license we use, so
therefore we should use the most recent one (GPL3) to ensure we pick
up whatever expertise and experience the FSF has added to it.
Assuming we can get in touch with all the copyright holder
On Tuesday 07 August 2007, DJ Delorie wrote:
> > Do we have any interest in moving the project to GPL3
> > licensing terms?
>
> I don't think it really matters for geda, the changes are
> mostly for embedded and web-app software, neither of which
> geda is.
Gnucap is moving to GPL-3.
There are al
> Do we have any interest in moving the project to GPL3 licensing
> terms?
I don't think it really matters for geda, the changes are mostly for
embedded and web-app software, neither of which geda is.
___
geda-dev mailing list
geda-dev@moria.seul.org
14 matches
Mail list logo
