Greg KH wrote:
The GPLv2 is all about distribution, not use cases, so yes, this is the
case and is perfictly legal with GPLv2 (even the FSF explicitly told
Tivo that what they were doing was legal and acceptable.)
Well legal, maybe, ie acceptable under the terms.
So, what is the problem
On Thu, 2007-07-12 at 10:18 +0100, Steve Long wrote:
Or is it `acceptable' for me to put GPLv3 on, say, an ebuild I wrote from
scratch?
The point is that we don't feel that you *can* write an ebuild from
scratch since it will require certain components, which we feel require
you to base your
On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 11:24:25 -0700
Chris Gianelloni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 2007-07-12 at 10:18 +0100, Steve Long wrote:
Or is it `acceptable' for me to put GPLv3 on, say, an ebuild I
wrote from scratch?
The point is that we don't feel that you *can* write an ebuild from
scratch
On Thu, Jul 12, 2007 at 10:18:13AM +0100, Steve Long wrote:
Greg KH wrote:
The GPLv2 is all about distribution, not use cases, so yes, this is the
case and is perfictly legal with GPLv2 (even the FSF explicitly told
Tivo that what they were doing was legal and acceptable.)
Well legal,
On Thursday 12 July 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Chris Gianelloni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 2007-07-12 at 10:18 +0100, Steve Long wrote:
Or is it `acceptable' for me to put GPLv3 on, say, an ebuild I
wrote from scratch?
The point is that we don't feel that you *can* write an
On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 15:00:14 -0400
Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Which feelings are clearly wrong, for anyone with any degree of
familiarity with ebuilds.
perhaps, but in the larger scheme of things, irrelevant
Unless there are third party repositories shipping their own
On Thu, 2007-07-12 at 20:07 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Unless there are third party repositories shipping their own
from-scratch ebuilds... In which case, afaics there's nothing to stop
*them* from going GPL-3 if they think there's a reason to do so. Unless
the Foundation somehow claims
On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 15:14:38 -0400
Seemant Kulleen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What's the case here? Third-party ebuilds being contributed into the
tree via bugzilla and other means? Or third-party ebuilds from joe
shmoe off www.joeshmoesebuilds.com?
The second case is meaningless to Gentoo.
On Thursday, 12. July 2007 21:14:38 Seemant Kulleen wrote:
It would be an interesting question, though, to prove that someone
wrote a from-scratch ebuild via looking only at the documentation, and
without basing any parts off of already existing ebuilds in the tree,
no?
How many angels can
On Thu, 2007-07-12 at 15:14 -0400, Seemant Kulleen wrote:
On Thu, 2007-07-12 at 20:07 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Unless there are third party repositories shipping their own
from-scratch ebuilds... In which case, afaics there's nothing to stop
*them* from going GPL-3 if they think
On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 21:48:05 +0200
Wulf C. Krueger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Seriously, guys...
*Did* some Gentoo dev commit an ebuild licenced under GPL-3?
*Did* some user attach an ebuild licenced under GPL-3 to a bug?
There are third party repositories out there with from-scratch ebuilds
On Thursday 12 July 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Which feelings are clearly wrong, for anyone with any degree of
familiarity with ebuilds.
perhaps, but in the larger scheme of things, irrelevant
Unless there are third party repositories shipping
On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 12:58:49 -0700
Chris Gianelloni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It would be an interesting question, though, to prove that someone
wrote a from-scratch ebuild via looking only at the documentation,
and without basing any parts off of already existing ebuilds in the
tree, no?
Ciaran McCreesh kirjoitti:
As I understand it, merely using an eclass doesn't force GPL-2 on an
ebuild because there's no linkage involved.
This argument would make it possible to write apps using GPL-2 python
libraries in !GPL-2 licenses so I don't think it goes that way but I am
no lawyer
On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 16:10:48 -0400
Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thursday 12 July 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Which feelings are clearly wrong, for anyone with any degree of
familiarity with ebuilds.
perhaps, but in the larger
On Thu, Jul 12, 2007 at 11:16:46PM +0300, Petteri Räty wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh kirjoitti:
As I understand it, merely using an eclass doesn't force GPL-2 on an
ebuild because there's no linkage involved.
This argument would make it possible to write apps using GPL-2 python
libraries
On Thursday 12 July 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 16:10:48 -0400
Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thursday 12 July 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Which feelings are clearly wrong, for anyone with any degree of
On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 17:06:05 -0400
Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
third parties are free to license however they like.
Could the Foundation make a formal statement to that effect, and could
wolf31o2 retract his claim that all ebuilds are derived works of
skel.ebuild?
--
Ciaran
On Thursday 12 July 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
third parties are free to license however they like.
Could the Foundation make a formal statement to that effect, and could
wolf31o2 retract his claim that all ebuilds are derived works of
skel.ebuild?
On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 15:14:38 -0400
Seemant Kulleen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The question there, I suppose, is: do we *require* contributors to
license ebuilds as GPL-2?
The Gentoo Project requires contributors to surrender the copyright to
the Gentoo Foundation. The Foundation sets the license
On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 22:11:36 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 17:06:05 -0400
Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
third parties are free to license however they like.
Could the Foundation make a formal statement to that effect, and could
wolf31o2
On Thursday 12 July 2007, Jeroen Roovers wrote:
snip
before people start responding with their opinions, take this to the trustees
list. that list is for all Gentoo licensing/copyright/blah-blah-boring-crap.
-mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Add usual IANAL disclaimer here. All of what I say below is just a
recall of what I remember from discussions that happened a few years
ago.
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 04:53:10 +0200
Jeroen Roovers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To be exact, by submitting an ebuild, you actively surrender the
copyright to
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 05:55:26 +0200
Marius Mauch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, documention won't help to resolve the legal questions about this
(what exactly is necessary to assign copyright from a person to the
foundation), and that's the main problem IMO.
I never realised this was
Correct, it does, just like it permits C applications with
GPL-incompatible licenses to link with GPL libraries, so long as this
linking is done by the end user and the application is not distributed
in its linked form. See for example the NVidia kernel module, or for a
somewhat different but
On Friday 13 July 2007, Jeroen Roovers wrote:
Marius Mauch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, documention won't help to resolve the legal questions about this
(what exactly is necessary to assign copyright from a person to the
foundation), and that's the main problem IMO.
I never realised
On Fri, Jul 13, 2007 at 07:04:20AM +0200, Harald van Dijk wrote:
Correct, it does, just like it permits C applications with
GPL-incompatible licenses to link with GPL libraries, so long as this
linking is done by the end user and the application is not distributed
in its linked form. See
Dominique Michel [EMAIL PROTECTED] posted
[EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Mon, 09 Jul 2007
21:37:52 +0200:
So in fact, it doesn't matter in regard of tivoization if the tre is
under v2 or v3. I am not a layer, but I will be very surprised if I am
wrong on that point.
Agreed.
Duncan wrote:
Thus the questions of whether many/most individual ebuilds /could/ be
copyrighted or if so whether it's worth doing so. Certainly, it's the
tree that contains the license, not the individual ebuilds, etc, which
give the copyright statement but little more. Gentoo policy would
Steve Long [EMAIL PROTECTED] posted [EMAIL PROTECTED],
excerpted below, on Mon, 09 Jul 2007 10:31:23 +0100:
Duncan wrote:
Thus the questions of whether many/most individual ebuilds /could/ be
copyrighted or if so whether it's worth doing so. [] Gentoo policy
would seem to be, then, that
On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 10:31:23 +0100
Steve Long [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
IMO though, Gentoo is effectively already under GPL3 in that, apart
from portage and python, all the core software is GNU. It'd be pretty
difficult for instance, to run any ebuild without BASH.
It's not a matter of opinion
Jeroen Roovers kirjoitti:
On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 10:31:23 +0100
Steve Long [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
IMO though, Gentoo is effectively already under GPL3 in that, apart
from portage and python, all the core software is GNU. It'd be pretty
difficult for instance, to run any ebuild without BASH.
Thus the questions of whether many/most individual ebuilds /could/ be
copyrighted or if so whether it's worth doing so. Certainly, it's the
tree that contains the license, not the individual ebuilds, etc, which
give the copyright statement but little more. Gentoo policy would seem
to
Petteri Räty wrote:
David kirjoitti:
Was suggested I make a post on the mailing list in addition to lodging
bug https://bugs.gentoo.org/184522
Don't know why you were suggested it but any way yes everyone should be
on the lookout for license changes.
That's why ;)
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Richard Freeman [EMAIL PROTECTED] posted
[EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Sun, 08 Jul 2007
14:15:43 -0400:
Seemant Kulleen wrote:
If you can really show some way that GPL3 provides a compelling case to
move to it, then we can start talking about that.
I wasn't aware that gentoo
35 matches
Mail list logo
