On Wed, Dec 10, 2003 at 10:46:29PM +, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
> So what do you use instead?
>
> If you think your licence solves both the problems you mention, then
> presumably you believe that your licence has a good chance of being
> compatible with GPLv3 if GPLv3 turns out to be a good
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Due to the GFDL debacle, I no longer trust the FSF's conception of
> "free" (eg. "similar in spirit") to my own software, so I'm not
> comfortable with the upgrade clause, and not using the upgrade clause
> will cause big problems down the road, so I'm starting
On Wed, 10 Dec 2003, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 10, 2003 at 10:28:57PM +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote:
> > FSF advocates that wording, and there are rumors that you *must* do it
> > that way. Be the rumors true or not, almost everyone uses that
> > clause.
>
> I believe that's the main reason
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Måns Rullgård) writes:
> Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Måns Rullgård <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>
>>> I know that is how law works. I just find it strange, that the GPL is
>>> so explicit on this point, and yet doesn't bother to clarify at all
>>> what a "der
On Wed, Dec 10, 2003 at 10:28:57PM +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote:
> FSF advocates that wording, and there are rumors that you *must* do it
> that way. Be the rumors true or not, almost everyone uses that
> clause.
When the FSF releases a new version of the GPL, it will probably be
incompatible with
Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Scripsit [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Måns Rullgård)
>
>> I know that is how law works. I just find it strange, that the GPL is
>> so explicit on this point, and yet doesn't bother to clarify at all
>> what a "derived work" might be, just to take an example.
>
Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Måns Rullgård <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>> I know that is how law works. I just find it strange, that the GPL is
>> so explicit on this point, and yet doesn't bother to clarify at all
>> what a "derived work" might be, just to take an example.
>
> I
Arnoud Engelfriet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
>> Arnoud Engelfriet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > This way the FSF can introduce a new version of the GPL and I
>> > can use any software with the above text under that new version.
>> > But if the software is only licensed u
Måns Rullgård <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I know that is how law works. I just find it strange, that the GPL is
> so explicit on this point, and yet doesn't bother to clarify at all
> what a "derived work" might be, just to take an example.
I suppose the idea is to have the GPL apply as broadly as po
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) writes:
> No, that's because the GPL is designed to work well in a variety of
> legal climates, and each different jurisdiction spells out the
> definition of "Derived Work" in its own legal code.
I did a quick look in Swedish and Norwegian copyright law (thos
Scripsit [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Måns Rullgård)
> I know that is how law works. I just find it strange, that the GPL is
> so explicit on this point, and yet doesn't bother to clarify at all
> what a "derived work" might be, just to take an example.
It's on purpose: The GPL wants as much as possible t
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Måns Rullgård) writes:
> Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> On Wed, Dec 10, 2003 at 03:31:40PM +0100, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
>>> All that seems rather obvious to me, so why write it down? Would
>>> there be another possible interpretation otherwise? If that's the
>
M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
> Arnoud Engelfriet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > This way the FSF can introduce a new version of the GPL and I
> > can use any software with the above text under that new version.
> > But if the software is only licensed under GPLv2, there is no
> > way I can use it under GP
Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Dec 10, 2003 at 03:31:40PM +0100, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
>> All that seems rather obvious to me, so why write it down? Would
>> there be another possible interpretation otherwise? If that's the
>> case, why not mention programs that allow only
On Wed, Dec 10, 2003 at 03:31:40PM +0100, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
> All that seems rather obvious to me, so why write it down? Would
> there be another possible interpretation otherwise? If that's the
> case, why not mention programs that allow only one specified version?
In law, anything which is
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Dec 08, 2003 at 03:09:06PM -0500, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
>> Ah, found it -- Debian KDE list, late July 2002: Konqueror doesn't
>> link against OpenSSL. It runs a separate process (kcm_crypto, it
>> looks like), which links against openssl... bu
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Måns Rullgård) writes:
> I have seen claims that attempts to restrict the choice to one
> particular version are invalid. I can't remember the details right
> now.
Pure FUD.
> GPL section 9 contains this confusing paragraph:
>
> Each version is given a distinguishing versio
Arnoud Engelfriet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
>> sure. I personally feel uncomfortable with applying a license that
>> 1) nobody knows what it means, and 2) the FSF can change the terms of
>> at any time.
>
> They can't. What most people do is say "This program is free
> so
M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
> sure. I personally feel uncomfortable with applying a license that
> 1) nobody knows what it means, and 2) the FSF can change the terms of
> at any time.
They can't. What most people do is say "This program is free
software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under th
"D. Starner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> How then, can someone who tacks on the GPL, because he's seen it
>> before, and it's supposed to be a good choice, know exactly what he
>> really wants? I'm not talking about GNU Readline here, I'm talking
>> about numerous small projects having nothing
> How then, can someone who tacks on the GPL, because he's seen it
> before, and it's supposed to be a good choice, know exactly what he
> really wants? I'm not talking about GNU Readline here, I'm talking
> about numerous small projects having nothing to do with the FSF and
> their grand scheme.
21 matches
Mail list logo
