On Tue, Jul 10, 2007 at 05:37:46PM -0300, Kevin Lacquement wrote:
> Greg KH wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 10, 2007 at 07:10:35PM +0200, Dominique Michel wrote:
> Can you explain more. If the kernel can be tivoized by someone
> >>> I'm sorry, but "tivoized" is not a verb. Please explain what you mean
Greg KH wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 10, 2007 at 07:10:35PM +0200, Dominique Michel wrote:
Can you explain more. If the kernel can be tivoized by someone
>>> I'm sorry, but "tivoized" is not a verb. Please explain what you mean
>>> by this.
>> I mean if someone distribute a kernel with a licence that
On Tue, Jul 10, 2007 at 07:10:35PM +0200, Dominique Michel wrote:
>
> > > Can you explain more. If the kernel can be tivoized by someone
> >
> > I'm sorry, but "tivoized" is not a verb. Please explain what you mean
> > by this.
>
> I mean if someone distribute a kernel with a licence that forbi
> > Can you explain more. If the kernel can be tivoized by someone
>
> I'm sorry, but "tivoized" is not a verb. Please explain what you mean
> by this.
I mean if someone distribute a kernel with a licence that forbid to remove the
functions he added even if we don't want them (as example drm at
On Mon, Jul 09, 2007 at 09:07:20PM +0200, Dominique Michel wrote:
> Le Mon, 9 Jul 2007 09:39:14 -0700,
> Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a ??crit :
>
> > On Sun, Jul 08, 2007 at 04:46:57PM +0200, Dominique Michel wrote:
> > >
> > > I personally think at gpl-3 is better as gpl-2 because GPLv3 will blo
Le Mon, 9 Jul 2007 09:39:14 -0700,
Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit :
> On Sun, Jul 08, 2007 at 04:46:57PM +0200, Dominique Michel wrote:
> >
> > I personally think at gpl-3 is better as gpl-2 because GPLv3 will block
> > tivoization.
>
> Only if the kernel is changed to v3, which it will not
On Sun, Jul 08, 2007 at 09:42:49PM +0200, Wulf C. Krueger wrote:
> On Sunday, 08. July 2007 21:12:38 Harald van Dijk wrote:
> > > "# Copyright 1999-2007 Gentoo Foundation"
> > > Thus, the copyright owner/holder is the Gentoo Foundation.
> > If I write an ebuild today, why does it not say "Copyright
On Sunday, 08. July 2007 21:12:38 Harald van Dijk wrote:
> > "# Copyright 1999-2007 Gentoo Foundation"
> > Thus, the copyright owner/holder is the Gentoo Foundation.
> If I write an ebuild today, why does it not say "Copyright 2007"?
Probably because different legal systems require different forma
On Sun, Jul 08, 2007 at 08:52:30PM +0200, Wulf C. Krueger wrote:
> On Sunday, 08. July 2007 20:15:31 Harald van Dijk wrote:
> > > No, you have to get permission of the copyright holders. Which, in
> > > this case, is the Foundation.
> > Could you back that up, please? I was looking for something to
On Sunday, 08. July 2007 20:15:31 Harald van Dijk wrote:
> > No, you have to get permission of the copyright holders. Which, in
> > this case, is the Foundation.
> Could you back that up, please? I was looking for something to confirm
> or deny this myself, but didn't find anything.
It's in the cop
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
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 practiced copyright assignment. You might
want to make the disclaimers
On Sun, Jul 08, 2007 at 03:50:56PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sun, 8 Jul 2007 16:46:57 +0200
> Dominique Michel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > With the original statement "GPL-2" alone, you have to take contact
> > and get an authorisation to move from each single programmer that
> > contri
On Sun, 2007-07-08 at 16:46 +0200, Dominique Michel wrote:
> I personally think at gpl-3 is better as gpl-2 because GPLv3 will block
> tivoization. Tivoization means computers (called “appliances”) contain
> GPL-covered software that you can't change, because the appliance shuts down
> if
> it de
On Sun, 8 Jul 2007 16:46:57 +0200
Dominique Michel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> With the original statement "GPL-2" alone, you have to take contact
> and get an authorisation to move from each single programmer that
> contributed code into the project.
No, you have to get permission of the copyrig
Le Sun, 08 Jul 2007 09:06:09 -0400,
Seemant Kulleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit :
> On Sun, 2007-07-08 at 13:50 +0200, Wulf C. Krueger wrote:
> > On Sunday, 08. July 2007 13:04:24 Marijn Schouten (hkBst) wrote:
> > > What about moving Gentoo stuff to `GPLv3 or later'?
> >
> > I'm strongly opposed
On Sun, 2007-07-08 at 13:50 +0200, Wulf C. Krueger wrote:
> On Sunday, 08. July 2007 13:04:24 Marijn Schouten (hkBst) wrote:
> > What about moving Gentoo stuff to `GPLv3 or later'?
>
> I'm strongly opposed to the "or later" part for the simple reason that
> this implicates we will agree with stuf
On Sunday, 08. July 2007 13:04:24 Marijn Schouten (hkBst) wrote:
> What about moving Gentoo stuff to `GPLv3 or later'?
I'm strongly opposed to the "or later" part for the simple reason that
this implicates we will agree with stuff we don't even know yet.
Therefore, I'm glad our current copyrigh
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
What about moving Gentoo stuff to `GPLv3 or later'?
Marijn
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFGkMS4p/VmCx0OL2wRAmkvAKDJCYN0B/i7Pxyg1rDPCVeaSQxZAwCfQeb0
Ah it's not the actual ebuild's fault it's the site's fault as per
according to https://bugs.gentoo.org/182943 ;) hopefully someone will
get on that.
-Kalidarn
On Sat, 2007-07-07 at 21:35 +0300, Petteri Räty wrote:
> David kirjoitti:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Was suggested I make a post on the mailing li
David kirjoitti:
> Hi,
>
> 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.
Regards,
Petteri
signature.asc
Description: Ope
20 matches
Mail list logo
