On Jun 28, 2007, Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jun 28, 2007, Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> So, let's narrow the scenario to: tivoized machine downloads binary
>> from protected site, refrains from downloading sources that it could
>> download, user can still
On Jun 28, 2007, Alexandre Oliva [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jun 28, 2007, Alexandre Oliva [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, let's narrow the scenario to: tivoized machine downloads binary
from protected site, refrains from downloading sources that it could
download, user can still access and copy
On Jun 30, 2007, "David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> But software is different. So different
>> that it's governed by a separate law in Brazil, which could be
>> qualified as a subclass of copyright law. And this law states that
>> running programs requires permission from the
On Jun 30, 2007, David Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But software is different. So different
that it's governed by a separate law in Brazil, which could be
qualified as a subclass of copyright law. And this law states that
running programs requires permission from the copyright holder.
> > Treating ordinary use as a copyright privilege leads to
> > nonsensical results
> > no matter what you do. For example, you get that I can drop copies of my
> > poem from an airplane and then sue anyone who reads it.
> Who was talking about reading?
They are both ordinary use. It is crazy
On Jun 28, 2007, "David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Alexandre Oliva write:
>> > The GPL does sometimes use the word "may" where it's not clear
>> > whether it
>> > means you have permission or you must be able to. The general rule of
>> > construction is that "may" means permission,
On Jun 28, 2007, David Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alexandre Oliva write:
The GPL does sometimes use the word may where it's not clear
whether it
means you have permission or you must be able to. The general rule of
construction is that may means permission, unless there's some
Treating ordinary use as a copyright privilege leads to
nonsensical results
no matter what you do. For example, you get that I can drop copies of my
poem from an airplane and then sue anyone who reads it.
Who was talking about reading?
They are both ordinary use. It is crazy to treat
Alexandre Oliva write:
> > The GPL does sometimes use the word "may" where it's not clear
> > whether it
> > means you have permission or you must be able to. The general rule of
> > construction is that "may" means permission, unless there's some clear
> > indication to the contrary. The "may"s
On Jun 28, 2007, Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So, let's narrow the scenario to: tivoized machine downloads binary
> from protected site, refrains from downloading sources that it could
> download, user can still access and copy the binaries, but can't
> obtain the sources because
On Jun 28, 2007, "David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Let's hope courts see it this way.
>> But then, why is it that I can't use hardware to stop someone from
>> copying or modifying the source code, but I can use hardware to stop
>> someone from copying or modifying the binary? Or is
On Jun 28, 2007, Jan Harkes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> As for making modifications, I'd like to take this opportunity to
>> withdraw, for purposes of interpretation, my earlier agreement that
>> TiVo permits modification, even though it doesn't permit modification
>> in place. I don't see any
> Let's hope courts see it this way.
> But then, why is it that I can't use hardware to stop someone from
> copying or modifying the source code, but I can use hardware to stop
> someone from copying or modifying the binary? Or is that not so?
You can use the hardware to stop someone from
Let's hope courts see it this way.
But then, why is it that I can't use hardware to stop someone from
copying or modifying the source code, but I can use hardware to stop
someone from copying or modifying the binary? Or is that not so?
You can use the hardware to stop someone from copying
On Jun 28, 2007, Jan Harkes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As for making modifications, I'd like to take this opportunity to
withdraw, for purposes of interpretation, my earlier agreement that
TiVo permits modification, even though it doesn't permit modification
in place. I don't see any
On Jun 28, 2007, David Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Let's hope courts see it this way.
But then, why is it that I can't use hardware to stop someone from
copying or modifying the source code, but I can use hardware to stop
someone from copying or modifying the binary? Or is that not
On Jun 28, 2007, Alexandre Oliva [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, let's narrow the scenario to: tivoized machine downloads binary
from protected site, refrains from downloading sources that it could
download, user can still access and copy the binaries, but can't
obtain the sources because the
Alexandre Oliva write:
The GPL does sometimes use the word may where it's not clear
whether it
means you have permission or you must be able to. The general rule of
construction is that may means permission, unless there's some clear
indication to the contrary. The mays in sections one
On Wed, Jun 27, 2007 at 08:08:08PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 26, 2007, Jan Harkes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > GPLv2 section 3.
> > The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for
> > making modifications to it.
>
> > I believe this states that the
On Jun 28, 2007, "David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Until someplace you can't actually access the software is customarily used
> for software interchange, ...
As in TiVo boxes? :-) :-)
> This is a defect in the GPL. At least as I understood it, the intent
> was to force distributors
On Thursday 28 June 2007 00:45:18 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 27, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Section 3 doesn't apply to this situation. However, other sections
> > do. They are distributing in line with the distribution requirement,
> > but not the "modification and
On Jun 27, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Section 3 doesn't apply to this situation. However, other sections
> do. They are distributing in line with the distribution requirement,
> but not the "modification and copying" requirements. These are
> granted early in the license
> Alexandre Oliva writes:
>
> >> Yes, but in the scenario I proposed, the source code *is* in the
> >> preferred form for making modifications, it just so happens to be
> >> behind a barrier you cannot trespass. This is not different from
> >> shipping binaries and sources in a CD inside a
On Wednesday 27 June 2007 22:37:42 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 27, 2007, "David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Behind a barrier is not on a medium customarily used for software
> > interchange, which 3a requires.
>
> Are you per chance claiming that you've never heard of anyone
>
On Jun 27, 2007, "David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Behind a barrier is not on a medium customarily used for software
> interchange, which 3a requires.
Are you per chance claiming that you've never heard of anyone
receiving encrypted software in a CD, or pre-installed in a computer?
> On Jun 27, 2007, "David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Alexandre Oliva writes:
>
> >> Yes, but in the scenario I proposed, the source code *is* in the
> >> preferred form for making modifications, it just so happens to be
> >> behind a barrier you cannot trespass. This is not
On Jun 27, 2007, "David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Alexandre Oliva writes:
>> Yes, but in the scenario I proposed, the source code *is* in the
>> preferred form for making modifications, it just so happens to be
>> behind a barrier you cannot trespass. This is not different from
>>
Alexandre Oliva writes:
> Yes, but in the scenario I proposed, the source code *is* in the
> preferred form for making modifications, it just so happens to be
> behind a barrier you cannot trespass. This is not different from
> shipping binaries and sources in a CD inside a locked box that you
On Jun 26, 2007, Jan Harkes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> GPLv2 section 3.
> The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for
> making modifications to it.
> I believe this states that the source code has to be in the preferred
> form for making modifications and not
On Jun 26, 2007, Jan Harkes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
GPLv2 section 3.
The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for
making modifications to it.
I believe this states that the source code has to be in the preferred
form for making modifications and not some
Alexandre Oliva writes:
Yes, but in the scenario I proposed, the source code *is* in the
preferred form for making modifications, it just so happens to be
behind a barrier you cannot trespass. This is not different from
shipping binaries and sources in a CD inside a locked box that you
On Jun 27, 2007, David Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alexandre Oliva writes:
Yes, but in the scenario I proposed, the source code *is* in the
preferred form for making modifications, it just so happens to be
behind a barrier you cannot trespass. This is not different from
shipping
On Jun 27, 2007, David Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alexandre Oliva writes:
Yes, but in the scenario I proposed, the source code *is* in the
preferred form for making modifications, it just so happens to be
behind a barrier you cannot trespass. This is not different from
On Jun 27, 2007, David Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Behind a barrier is not on a medium customarily used for software
interchange, which 3a requires.
Are you per chance claiming that you've never heard of anyone
receiving encrypted software in a CD, or pre-installed in a computer?
I
On Wednesday 27 June 2007 22:37:42 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Jun 27, 2007, David Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Behind a barrier is not on a medium customarily used for software
interchange, which 3a requires.
Are you per chance claiming that you've never heard of anyone
receiving
Alexandre Oliva writes:
Yes, but in the scenario I proposed, the source code *is* in the
preferred form for making modifications, it just so happens to be
behind a barrier you cannot trespass. This is not different from
shipping binaries and sources in a CD inside a locked box that you
On Jun 27, 2007, Daniel Hazelton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Section 3 doesn't apply to this situation. However, other sections
do. They are distributing in line with the distribution requirement,
but not the modification and copying requirements. These are
granted early in the license and
On Thursday 28 June 2007 00:45:18 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Jun 27, 2007, Daniel Hazelton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Section 3 doesn't apply to this situation. However, other sections
do. They are distributing in line with the distribution requirement,
but not the modification and copying
On Jun 28, 2007, David Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Until someplace you can't actually access the software is customarily used
for software interchange, ...
As in TiVo boxes? :-) :-)
This is a defect in the GPL. At least as I understood it, the intent
was to force distributors to
On Wed, Jun 27, 2007 at 08:08:08PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Jun 26, 2007, Jan Harkes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
GPLv2 section 3.
The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for
making modifications to it.
I believe this states that the source code has
On Tue, Jun 26, 2007 at 04:47:34AM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 26, 2007, Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Jun 26, 2007, Jan Harkes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> You could argue that they do not restrict copying, distribution
> >> and modification of the sources in
On Jun 26, 2007, Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jun 26, 2007, Jan Harkes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> You could argue that they do not restrict copying, distribution
>> and modification of the sources in general, only of the specific copy
>> they distribute.
> "We don't oppose
On Jun 26, 2007, Jan Harkes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 25, 2007 at 04:54:52PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> Consider this scenario: vendor tivoizes Linux in the device, and
>> includes the corresponding sources only in a partition that is
>> theoretically accessible using the
On Jun 26, 2007, Jan Harkes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Jun 25, 2007 at 04:54:52PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
Consider this scenario: vendor tivoizes Linux in the device, and
includes the corresponding sources only in a partition that is
theoretically accessible using the shipped
On Jun 26, 2007, Alexandre Oliva [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jun 26, 2007, Jan Harkes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You could argue that they do not restrict copying, distribution
and modification of the sources in general, only of the specific copy
they distribute.
We don't oppose that you do
On Tue, Jun 26, 2007 at 04:47:34AM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Jun 26, 2007, Alexandre Oliva [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jun 26, 2007, Jan Harkes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You could argue that they do not restrict copying, distribution
and modification of the sources in general, only of
On Mon, Jun 25, 2007 at 04:54:52PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> Consider this scenario: vendor tivoizes Linux in the device, and
> includes the corresponding sources only in a partition that is
> theoretically accessible using the shipped kernel, but that nothing in
> the software available in
On Jun 25, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lennart Sorensen) wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 22, 2007 at 03:00:30AM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> I was here to dispell the lies that were being spread about GPLv3, the
>> spirit and the goals of the GPL, as far as I understood them.
> Just because someone has a
On Fri, Jun 22, 2007 at 03:00:30AM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> That was a given from the start. The spin that there was any chance
> whatsoever it could possibly happen was just that. Even if Linus
> could possibly consider this, others have made it pretty clear that
> this was never an
On Fri, Jun 22, 2007 at 03:00:30AM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
That was a given from the start. The spin that there was any chance
whatsoever it could possibly happen was just that. Even if Linus
could possibly consider this, others have made it pretty clear that
this was never an option
On Jun 25, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lennart Sorensen) wrote:
On Fri, Jun 22, 2007 at 03:00:30AM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
I was here to dispell the lies that were being spread about GPLv3, the
spirit and the goals of the GPL, as far as I understood them.
Just because someone has a
On Mon, Jun 25, 2007 at 04:54:52PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
Consider this scenario: vendor tivoizes Linux in the device, and
includes the corresponding sources only in a partition that is
theoretically accessible using the shipped kernel, but that nothing in
the software available in the
> > It's this simple, those who chose the GPLv2 for Linux and their
> > contributions to it don't want people to create derivative
> > works of their
> > works that can't be Tivoized. They see this as a feature, and it's the
> Untrue. Many of us think (and the lawyers are unsure) that it is
On Jun 22, 2007, Theodore Tso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 22, 2007 at 10:14:23AM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
>> > Another law of negotiations --- don't goad people into hardening their
>> > positions; it helps neither you nor your interests.
>>
>> That always depends which side you
On Fri, Jun 22, 2007 at 10:14:23AM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> > Another law of negotiations --- don't goad people into hardening their
> > positions; it helps neither you nor your interests.
>
> That always depends which side you really support, whether you want to
> force someone to wedge
On Fri, Jun 22, 2007 at 03:00:30AM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> I was here to dispell the lies that were being spread about GPLv3, the
> spirit and the goals of the GPL, as far as I understood them. I knew
> from the start that it was an uphill battle, and that I wouldn't be
> able to convince
> Another law of negotiations --- don't goad people into hardening their
> positions; it helps neither you nor your interests.
That always depends which side you really support, whether you want to
force someone to wedge themselves in an undefendable corner and so on..
Alan
-
To unsubscribe from
> It's this simple, those who chose the GPLv2 for Linux and their
> contributions to it don't want people to create derivative works of their
> works that can't be Tivoized. They see this as a feature, and it's the
Untrue. Many of us think (and the lawyers are unsure) that it is covered
by GPLv2
On Jun 22, 2007, Al Viro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 22, 2007 at 01:26:54AM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> No, this thread was about additional permissions to combine with other
>> licenses. I didn't suggest anything about relicensing whatsoever,
>> that's all noise out of not
On Jun 22, 2007, Theodore Tso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> has probably made it made it much more *unlikely* that the Linux
> kernel will ever go GPLv3.
That was a given from the start. The spin that there was any chance
whatsoever it could possibly happen was just that. Even if Linus
could
On Jun 22, 2007, Theodore Tso [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
has probably made it made it much more *unlikely* that the Linux
kernel will ever go GPLv3.
That was a given from the start. The spin that there was any chance
whatsoever it could possibly happen was just that. Even if Linus
could
On Jun 22, 2007, Al Viro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Jun 22, 2007 at 01:26:54AM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
No, this thread was about additional permissions to combine with other
licenses. I didn't suggest anything about relicensing whatsoever,
that's all noise out of not
It's this simple, those who chose the GPLv2 for Linux and their
contributions to it don't want people to create derivative works of their
works that can't be Tivoized. They see this as a feature, and it's the
Untrue. Many of us think (and the lawyers are unsure) that it is covered
by GPLv2
Another law of negotiations --- don't goad people into hardening their
positions; it helps neither you nor your interests.
That always depends which side you really support, whether you want to
force someone to wedge themselves in an undefendable corner and so on..
Alan
-
To unsubscribe from
On Fri, Jun 22, 2007 at 03:00:30AM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
I was here to dispell the lies that were being spread about GPLv3, the
spirit and the goals of the GPL, as far as I understood them. I knew
from the start that it was an uphill battle, and that I wouldn't be
able to convince
On Fri, Jun 22, 2007 at 10:14:23AM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
Another law of negotiations --- don't goad people into hardening their
positions; it helps neither you nor your interests.
That always depends which side you really support, whether you want to
force someone to wedge themselves in
On Jun 22, 2007, Theodore Tso [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Jun 22, 2007 at 10:14:23AM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
Another law of negotiations --- don't goad people into hardening their
positions; it helps neither you nor your interests.
That always depends which side you really support,
It's this simple, those who chose the GPLv2 for Linux and their
contributions to it don't want people to create derivative
works of their
works that can't be Tivoized. They see this as a feature, and it's the
Untrue. Many of us think (and the lawyers are unsure) that it is covered
by
On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 01:34:24 -0300 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> > You're not going to make a happy, happy merging code sharing world
> > by fragmenting the licence landscape even more.
>
> I take it that removing barriers to cooperation in GPLv3 by default is
> undesirable. Well, then, what can I
On Fri, Jun 22, 2007 at 01:34:24AM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> I take it that removing barriers to cooperation in GPLv3 by default is
> undesirable. Well, then, what can I say?
That It's All Their[kernel developers'] Fault(tm), of course.
> I tried. :-(
Or that, indeed.
-
To unsubscribe
On Fri, Jun 22, 2007 at 01:26:54AM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 21, 2007, Al Viro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 10:00:22PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> >> Do you agree that if there's any single contributor who thinks it
> >> can't be tivoized, and he
On Fri, Jun 22, 2007 at 01:14:27AM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 21, 2007, Jan Harkes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 08:23:57PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> >> It's not like anyone can safely tivoize devices with GPLv2 already,
>
> > So you really didn't pay
On Jun 21, 2007, Bron Gondwana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Great, so for ever and ever afterwards the code would have to keep a
> clear separation between the bits that are under different licences and
> make sure that no re-factor ever blurred the lines between them enough
> that you had
On Jun 21, 2007, Bron Gondwana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> None of this "Projects" nonsense.
The reason I mentioned projects was because each project has its
policies, around the interests of its own community. Each project can
thus make a decision about its own policies, just like Linux has
On Jun 21, 2007, Al Viro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 10:00:22PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> Do you agree that if there's any single contributor who thinks it
>> can't be tivoized, and he manages his opinion to prevail in court
>> against a copyright holder, then it
On Fri, Jun 22, 2007 at 02:34:17AM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> What really gets me is that you know it. And you know that just about
> everyone here knows it. Yet you keep playing with rather pathetic
> attempts of innuendo and misdirection, when it's bloody obvious that
> you won't even get a PR
On Jun 21, 2007, Jan Harkes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 08:23:57PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> It's not like anyone can safely tivoize devices with GPLv2 already,
> So you really didn't pay any attention to anything people told you?
Yes. Particularly to what Alan
On Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 06:39:07AM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> If GPLv3 were to have a clause that permitted combination/linking with
> code under GPLv2, this wouldn't be enough for GPLv3 projects to use
> Linux code, and it wouldn't be enough for Linux code to use GPLv3
> projects. That's
On Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 08:23:57PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 21, 2007, "David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> > Wouldn't that defeat the entire purpose of the GPLv3? Couldn't
> >> > I take any
> >> > GPLv3 program, combine it with a few lines of Linux code, and
> >> >
On Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 10:00:22PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> Do you agree that if there's any single contributor who thinks it
> can't be tivoized, and he manages his opinion to prevail in court
> against a copyright holder, then it can't? That this is the same
> privilege to veto
On Jun 21, 2007, "David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It's this simple, those who chose the GPLv2 for Linux and their
> contributions to it don't want people to create derivative works of their
> works that can't be Tivoized.
Do you agree that if there's any single contributor who
On Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 08:23:57PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 21, 2007, "David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> > Wouldn't that defeat the entire purpose of the GPLv3? Couldn't
> >> > I take any
> >> > GPLv3 program, combine it with a few lines of Linux code, and
> >> >
On Jun 21, 2007, Al Viro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 05:15:03PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> Anyone who's not happy about it can still take that portion out,
>> unless you accept changes that make this nearly impossible, which I
>> suppose you wouldn't given how
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> Now, if you guys can't recognize a goodwill gesture when you see one,
> and prefer to live in the paranoid beliefs that "those evil FSFers are
> trying to force me into a situation in which they'll then be able to
> steal my code", that's really up to you. Don't try to
On Jun 21, 2007, "Jesper Juhl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> My point was that your signature does indicate your affiliation with a
> lot of different organizations/companies, so unless you explicitly
> state that you are not speaking on behalf of them it's easy to assume
> you do.
And then, I
On Jun 21, 2007, "David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Are you seriously suggesting that the Linux kernel source contain code with
> various different licenses
It already does. All the way from permissive Free Software licenses
to GPLv2-incompatible non-Free Software licenses.
> Over
On Jun 21, 2007, "David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > Wouldn't that defeat the entire purpose of the GPLv3? Couldn't
>> > I take any
>> > GPLv3 program, combine it with a few lines of Linux code, and
>> > Tivoize the
>> > result?
>> No. This is not permission to relicense. This is
On 22/06/07, Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Jun 21, 2007, "Jesper Juhl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 21/06/07, Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [snip]
>>
>> BTW, I should probably have made clear that, as usual, I was speaking
>> my own mind, not speaking on behalf
On Jun 21, 2007, "Jesper Juhl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 21/06/07, Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [snip]
>>
>> BTW, I should probably have made clear that, as usual, I was speaking
>> my own mind, not speaking on behalf of FSFLA or Red Hat, with whom I'm
>> associated, and
On Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 05:15:03PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 21, 2007, Al Viro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 06:39:07AM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>
> >> - the kernel Linux could use code from GPLv3 projects
>
> > ... and inherit GPLv3 additional
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> With a mere permission to combine, I can only enforce these provisions
> over my own code.
What does "my own code" mean when we're talking about derivative works and
code in the codebase influencing the design of later code? Code from one
module gets copied into
> > Wouldn't that defeat the entire purpose of the GPLv3? Couldn't
> > I take any
> > GPLv3 program, combine it with a few lines of Linux code, and
> > Tivoize the
> > result?
> No. This is not permission to relicense. This is permission to
> combine. Each author still gets to enforce the
On 21/06/07, Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
BTW, I should probably have made clear that, as usual, I was speaking
my own mind, not speaking on behalf of FSFLA or Red Hat, with whom I'm
associated, and certainly not on behalf of FSF, with whom I'm not
associated. Just in case
On Jun 21, 2007, Al Viro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 06:39:07AM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> - the kernel Linux could use code from GPLv3 projects
> ... and inherit GPLv3 additional restrictions. No.
Respecting the wishes of the author of that code. Are you
On Jun 21, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> this is standard dual-licensing, not special just becouse both
> licenses are GPL versions
No, seriously, it's not, it's quite different.
If you dual-license your code between GPLv2 and GPLv3, I could combine
your code with code under GPLv3,
On Jun 21, 2007, "David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> However, if GPLv3 had a permission to combine/link with code under
>> GPLv2, *and* Linux (and any other projects interested in mutual
>> compatibility) introduced an additional permission to combine/link
>>
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> However, if GPLv3 had a permission to combine/link with code under
> GPLv2, *and* Linux (and any other projects interested in mutual
> compatibility) introduced an additional permission to combine/link
> with code under GPLv3 (or even GPLv3+, constrained by some
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Jun 21, 2007, jimmy bahuleyan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
There, that right there, wouldn't it again require a 'nod' from all
those who have contributed to the kernel (because at the time they did,
the license was GPLv2 without any additions)?
On Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 06:39:07AM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> Here's an idea that just occurred to me, after all the discussions
> about motivations, tit-for-tat, authors' wishes and all.
>
> If GPLv3 were to have a clause that permitted combination/linking with
> code under GPLv2, this
On Jun 21, 2007, jimmy bahuleyan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There, that right there, wouldn't it again require a 'nod' from all
> those who have contributed to the kernel (because at the time they did,
> the license was GPLv2 without any additions)?
That's my understanding, yes, but IANAL.
1 - 100 of 134 matches
Mail list logo
