Re: GPL - a invalid license choice?
On Sun, Aug 19, 2007 at 12:49:42PM +0200, Bas Wijnen wrote: On Sun, Aug 19, 2007 at 03:12:33AM +0200, Miriam Ruiz wrote: The link refers to GPL version 2 which makes sense for me. But not to specify the version seems just wrong. You're right, it might be better to specify the version. Better indeed, but not required. From the GPL (version 2): Thanks, I didn't know it. Which means you are free to choose to accept only version 2 and later, and distribute it as such. When doing that, you should of course change the headers to reflect this choice. OK, I will keep it as it is. I just wondered and wanted to ask about it. Jens ___ Pkg-games-devel mailing list Pkg-games-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-games-devel
GPL - a invalid license choice?
Hi, a few patches for hex-a-hop contain the following header: # Copyright (C) 2007 Sam Hocevar [EMAIL PROTECTED] # Licensed under the GPL, see /usr/share/common-licenses/GPL Does the license (GPL) make sense? What is GPL? The link refers to GPL version 2 which makes sense for me. But not to specify the version seems just wrong. I even read short time ago in Linux Magazin that something as GPL version 2 or later may be invalid as a person cannot license a work under a future license (GPL 4, ...) because he doesn't know the content of it. Comments? Jens ___ Pkg-games-devel mailing list Pkg-games-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-games-devel
RE: GPL - a invalid license choice?
--- Jens Seidel [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió: Hi, a few patches for hex-a-hop contain the following header: # Copyright (C) 2007 Sam Hocevar [EMAIL PROTECTED] # Licensed under the GPL, see /usr/share/common-licenses/GPL Does the license (GPL) make sense? What is GPL? You can safely replace GPL by GPL version 2 or later. It was me who added those headers. I think we should clarify who did which patch and its license, as well as we do with the packages. The link refers to GPL version 2 which makes sense for me. But not to specify the version seems just wrong. You're right, it might be better to specify the version. I even read short time ago in Linux Magazin that something as GPL version 2 or later may be invalid as a person cannot license a work under a future license (GPL 4, ...) because he doesn't know the content of it. I think that might be a topic for debian-legal, but I don't think it really affects us too much in practice, apart of discussing about the angel's gender :) Greetings, Miry PS: It might be better to use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for these kind of discussions :) Sé un Mejor Amante del Cine ¿Quieres saber cómo? ¡Deja que otras personas te ayuden! http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/reto/entretenimiento.html ___ Pkg-games-devel mailing list Pkg-games-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-games-devel
