On Sun, Jul 22, 2007 at 01:38:30AM +0200, Yoshinori K. Okuji wrote:
On Saturday 14 July 2007 15:02, Yoshinori K. Okuji wrote:
Thank you for your replies. As my time is limited, I don't reply to
individual messages, but I have read all of them. In my understanding, all
long-term contributors
Hello!
On Sun, Jul 22, 2007 at 10:04:34AM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
On Sun, Jul 22, 2007 at 01:38:30AM +0200, Yoshinori K. Okuji wrote:
will make a new release in next weekend, if everything looks good.
I don't think we're ready. There are serious outstanding issues on LVM and
On Saturday 14 July 2007 15:02, Yoshinori K. Okuji wrote:
Thank you for your replies. As my time is limited, I don't reply to
individual messages, but I have read all of them. In my understanding, all
long-term contributors have agreed (or not replied) for GPLv3, so, as an
official
So I assume all future patches will need to have their copyright
notices changed, correct?
On 21/07/07, Yoshinori K. Okuji [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Saturday 14 July 2007 15:02, Yoshinori K. Okuji wrote:
Thank you for your replies. As my time is limited, I don't reply to
individual
Thank you for your replies. As my time is limited, I don't reply to individual
messages, but I have read all of them. In my understanding, all long-term
contributors have agreed (or not replied) for GPLv3, so, as an official
representative of the GNU project, I conclude that we should migrate
On Sat, Jul 07, 2007 at 09:06:49PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
On Wed, Jul 04, 2007 at 09:40:15PM +0200, Yoshinori K. Okuji wrote:
So what do you think?
As said in my other mails in this thread, I don't think it makes sense to
switch to GPLv3 unless we do it all the way, including GRUB
On Thu, Jul 05, 2007 at 12:58:42AM +0200, Stefan Reinauer wrote:
2. Just have all the patches GPLv2 or later, and it will automatically
be GPLv3 or GPLv2, whatever applies.
This defeats the point of making GRUB GPLv3, because other parties can easily
avoid the additional restrictions by
On Wed, Jul 04, 2007 at 09:40:15PM +0200, Yoshinori K. Okuji wrote:
So what do you think?
As said in my other mails in this thread, I don't think it makes sense to
switch to GPLv3 unless we do it all the way, including GRUB Legacy.
(and I'm all for switching rather than staying with GPLv2)
Hello,
I would like to discuss the possibility of migrating to GPL version 3. As you
know, GPLv3 has been published, and all GNU software is recommended to
migrate from GPLv2 to GPLv3.
When we look at only GRUB 2, there should be no problem. Nearly all code is
copyrighted by the Free Software
On 04/07/07, Yoshinori K. Okuji [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Given the fact that nobody is really willing to maintain GRUB Legacy, we need
to consider which is more important, migrating to GPLv3, or keeping it easy
to backport fixes to GRUB Legacy from GRUB 2. I myself prefer to migrate to
GPLv3,
off once Grub 2 is ready for prime time.
Best to move the new license to the new upcoming code base and leave
the old code base be.
On 7/4/07, Yoshinori K. Okuji [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
I would like to discuss the possibility of migrating to GPL version 3. As you
know, GPLv3 has been
* Yoshinori K. Okuji [EMAIL PROTECTED] [070704 21:40]:
Hello,
I would like to discuss the possibility of migrating to GPL version 3. As you
know, GPLv3 has been published, and all GNU software is recommended to
migrate from GPLv2 to GPLv3.
[..]
1. What are the pros and cons? A discussion
* Jeroen Dekkers [EMAIL PROTECTED] [070704 23:10]:
Are you sure about this? Given that we've assigned copyright to the
FSF, the FSF can decide under which free software license to license
that code. So I don't really see why we can't release the same code
under GPLv2 or later in GRUB Legacy
Yoshinori K. Okuji [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi,
[...]
So I bet that GRUB Legacy should remain under GPLv2. But this can cause some
problem potentially. Let's say, we find the same bug both in GRUB Legacy and
in GRUB 2. In the current trend, the bug would be fixed in GRUB 2 sooner. But
14 matches
Mail list logo
