Re: [License-discuss] GPLv1?
David Woolley dixit: > process was set up, so FSF didn't submit it for approval. Did FSF submit GPLv2? I didn’t think submission was a requirement initially. John Cowan dixit: >The GPLv2 was grandfathered Ah. >but licenses normally have to be submitted to OSI by the steward, so >you'd have to talk to the FSF. They don’t list it on their list either. I compiled a list of lists: http://www.mirbsd.org/FreeLicenceLists.htm#lists (input welcome) >Do substantial parts of your material lack the phrase "or, at your >option, any later version" in their copyright notices? Yes. (There is a provision for linking with newer versions, though.) >I would support its recognition and placing in the "historic" category, >for what that's worth. That would be great. >The differences as shown by wdiff are chiefly editorial, with the Interesting, I did not think to wdiff them. Good to know. >exception of sections 7 and 8 of the GPLv2, which don't exist in GPLv1. From a quick glance of the relevant sections of GPLv2, the lack of these can be taken as an additional grant of rights, which OSI has commonly accepted (although normally not certified in detail, except we do have a separate licence identifier here). This is, in my eyes, a good reason to keep the codebase GPLv1, even if I probably could move it to GPLv2 with minor effort. Back to certifying GPLv1, couldn’t it be fast-tracked without an explicit submission given it’s ⓐ historic, and ⓑ only a flavour of GPLv2 without some restrictions and with some editorial changes? Thanks, //mirabilos -- >> Why don't you use JavaScript? I also don't like enabling JavaScript in > Because I use lynx as browser. +1 -- Octavio Alvarez, me and ⡍⠁⠗⠊⠕ (Mario Lang) on debian-devel ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] GPLv1?
On 18/06/17 15:59, Thorsten Glaser wrote: is it deliberate or accident that the GPLv1 is not on https://opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical ? What’s the stance on it? My guess is that it was already deprecated before the OSI approval process was set up, so FSF didn't submit it for approval. ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] GPLv1?
2017-06-18 10:59 GMT-04:00 Thorsten Glaser : Is it deliberate or accident that the GPLv1 is not on > https://opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical ? What’s > the stance on it? > The GPLv2 was grandfathered, but licenses normally have to be submitted to OSI by the steward, so you'd have to talk to the FSF. Do substantial parts of your material lack the phrase "or, at your option, any later version" in their copyright notices? If not, then this would be a simple solution. I would support its recognition and placing in the "historic" category, for what that's worth. The differences as shown by wdiff are chiefly editorial, with the exception of sections 7 and 8 of the GPLv2, which don't exist in GPLv1. -- John Cowan http://vrici.lojban.org/~cowanco...@ccil.org Even a refrigerator can conform to the XML Infoset, as long as it has a door sticker saying "No information items inside". --Eve Maler ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
[License-discuss] GPLv1?
Hi,
is it deliberate or accident that the GPLv1 is not on
https://opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical ? What’s
the stance on it?
It’s probably no real problem, but I maintain software
that’s got a very long history, which is GPLv1, and some
hosting platforms prescribe an OSI-approved licence.
Thanks,
//mirabilos
--
> emacs als auch vi zum Kotzen finde (joe rules) und pine für den einzig
> bedienbaren textmode-mailclient halte (und ich hab sie alle ausprobiert). ;)
Hallo, ich bin der Holger ("Hallo Holger!"), und ich bin ebenfalls
... pine-User, und das auch noch gewohnheitsmäßig ("Oooohhh"). [aus dasr]
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
