gpl v3 türkçe çeviri çalışması vardı, bitti mi?
Merhaba Listede daha önce[1] gpl-v3 ile ilgili birkaç yazışma olmuştu. Acaba GPLv3 Türkçe sürümüne ulaşabileceğimiz bir yer var mı? Çeviri için kullanılabilecek bir arabirim[2] var fakat türkçe için kullanan olmamış. 1- http://www.nabble.com/gpl-v3-türkçe-çeviri-çalışması-t4466411.html 2- http://traduwiki.org/Status/GPLv3#tr İyi çalışmalar -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
gpl v3 türkçe çeviri çalışması
Merhaba, GPLv3 için bir çeviri çalışması var mı, ya da tamamlanmış bir çevirisi bulunmakta mıdır? Bir projede dosyaya koymak için, çevirisine ihtiyacım var. Bilgisi olan arkadaşlar yönlendirebilirlerse sevinirim. Teşekkür ederim. İyi çalışmalar. -- Ali Deniz EREN [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: gpl v3 türkçe çeviri çalışması
evet var. benim birader calisiyor :-) tahminen bu hafta sonuna biter. 17.09.2007 tarihinde Ali Deniz EREN [EMAIL PROTECTED] yazmış: Merhaba, GPLv3 için bir çeviri çalışması var mı, ya da tamamlanmış bir çevirisi bulunmakta mıdır? Bir projede dosyaya koymak için, çevirisine ihtiyacım var. Bilgisi olan arkadaşlar yönlendirebilirlerse sevinirim. Teşekkür ederim. İyi çalışmalar. -- Ali Deniz EREN [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GPL v3?
Curt Howland wrote in Article [EMAIL PROTECTED] posted to gmane.linux.debian.user: On Thursday 05 April 2007 12:24, John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] was heard to say: Joe writes: Agreed, but how else can one do it if congress is unwilling to make a new law or repeal an existing one? Something must be done. This is something. Therefor it must be done. Would you fix a flat tire by putting water in the gas tank because you lack an air pump? That's what Governments do every day. Sounds more consistent with the behavior of people who start new threads when replying instead of sticking with the thread they're replying to... -- Paul Johnson Email and IM (XMPP Google Talk): [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GPL v3?
Am 2007-04-02 20:50:25, schrieb John L Fjellstad: Not if GPLv3 is incompatible with GPLv2. Linus doesn't have much say in the license of the kernel since the different codes are owned by the different authors (unlike FSF software that is owned by FSF). They would either have to track down all the contributors or rewrite the code for the stuff owned by people they can't track down or for people who don't want to relicense their code. And that was the intention of the kernel too, which is why they removed the ..or later text from the standard license text. ..and I think, it is nearly impossible to get several 1000 Developers and Code-Contributors on the same table to change the GPL version! Thanks, Greetings and nice Day Michelle Konzack Systemadministrator Tamay Dogan Network Debian GNU/Linux Consultant -- Linux-User #280138 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org/ # Debian GNU/Linux Consultant # Michelle Konzack Apt. 917 ICQ #328449886 50, rue de Soultz MSN LinuxMichi 0033/6/6192519367100 Strasbourg/France IRC #Debian (irc.icq.com) signature.pgp Description: Digital signature
Re: GPL v3?
On Wed, Apr 18, 2007 at 07:45:33PM +0200, Michelle Konzack wrote: Am 2007-04-02 20:50:25, schrieb John L Fjellstad: Not if GPLv3 is incompatible with GPLv2. Linus doesn't have much say in the license of the kernel since the different codes are owned by the different authors (unlike FSF software that is owned by FSF). They would either have to track down all the contributors or rewrite the code for the stuff owned by people they can't track down or for people who don't want to relicense their code. And that was the intention of the kernel too, which is why they removed the ..or later text from the standard license text. ..and I think, it is nearly impossible to get several 1000 Developers and Code-Contributors on the same table to change the GPL version! Even if not everyone wants to move over to the GPLv3, they can always stick with GPLv2. Personally I think the GPLv3 is an improvement on v2, but then again I'm only one person. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GPL v3?
I say Patents BAD only if they are used for keeping progress from happening. Software patents are an unmitigated evil. However, attempting to fix a patent problem with a copyright license is a serious error. You're confused: while I expect most GPLv3 contributors find software patents an unmitigated evil and would like to be able to make them disappear, the GPLv3 does not try to do that. It only tries to prevent the abuse of patents to circumvent the intent of the GPL. Stefan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GPL v3?
On Tue, 03 Apr 2007 22:03:05 +0200 Joe Hart [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [snip] Well, it appears that it isn't. It seems that companies have found loopholes to create proprietary software using GPL code. I don't know if anyone has actually taken any of these companies to court and challenged them on the issue, but in the meantime it seems the best thing to do is to close the loopholes. http://gpl-violations.org/ Celejar -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GPL v3?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Celejar wrote: On Tue, 03 Apr 2007 22:03:05 +0200 Joe Hart [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [snip] Well, it appears that it isn't. It seems that companies have found loopholes to create proprietary software using GPL code. I don't know if anyone has actually taken any of these companies to court and challenged them on the issue, but in the meantime it seems the best thing to do is to close the loopholes. http://gpl-violations.org/ Celejar Thanks for the link. It appears that I have some reporting to do. Maybe some of these companies can get sued and will even disappear (wishful thinking). Joe - -- Registerd Linux user #443289 at http://counter.li.org/ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGFfo0iXBCVWpc5J4RAjFxAKCuDtQMdydHDJcw5zIIgz6vUbbG2gCfe56h T9B5wia46ozXuBcbzwMkFuE= =3UkU -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GPL v3?
I wrote: Software patents are an unmitigated evil. However, attempting to fix a patent problem with a copyright license is a serious error. Joe writes: Agreed, but how else can one do it if congress is unwilling to make a new law or repeal an existing one? Something must be done. This is something. Therefor it must be done. Would you fix a flat tire by putting water in the gas tank because you lack an air pump? -- John Hasler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GPL v3?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 John Hasler wrote: I wrote: Software patents are an unmitigated evil. However, attempting to fix a patent problem with a copyright license is a serious error. Joe writes: Agreed, but how else can one do it if congress is unwilling to make a new law or repeal an existing one? Something must be done. This is something. Therefor it must be done. Would you fix a flat tire by putting water in the gas tank because you lack an air pump? Of course not. I am not going to debate this issue, because there are enough lawyers battling it out. If you're so against the GPLv3, then by all means take it up with the FSF. Don't forget that I agree with you. All I did was point out that the FSF is doing what they think is right. Joe - -- Registerd Linux user #443289 at http://counter.li.org/ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGFSN4iXBCVWpc5J4RAhddAKDDw4u65CKTFMpR78Xe8vOZFPMHsACgtfLk U7wHiRizJ3EEmQoGrZ6KhuY= =pSVI -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GPL v3?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Thursday 05 April 2007 12:24, John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] was heard to say: Joe writes: Agreed, but how else can one do it if congress is unwilling to make a new law or repeal an existing one? Something must be done. This is something. Therefor it must be done. Would you fix a flat tire by putting water in the gas tank because you lack an air pump? That's what Governments do every day. Curt- - -- September 11th, 2001 The proudest day for gun control and central planning advocates in American history -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iQEVAwUBRhUwYC9Y35yItIgBAQLrWgf+O3TqUgUP3jpA7mzIMSxCoQhuLunED8KJ wqhllVNNDd2Tl6lvnWzHQ7ZpzRlGboA76mRdPVlxVkZtOgd7DXzmlsuNhX8ieDei FmuwazsXkQEHBHiW2oJw/G81Pkr3X1XDRa7kCUBIEzpxOxf+OHqnKFYGCJSBnDXl NOwVzLZ0T46bi4w9gbNgvvycv/y2duUTf5qSmNmUhwK+b/l4v9/vakIE9tPRbeFV XeC34z05OgYesvU5pJaV6BADA+I50Ebqvx7qfVfiucI/y8ZVSApYD0K1SeFsYwc0 kMoVOV65azeDiIIodYz+OnRYpJ9daCN8ruotFTnsqiZTIswlIHJoXQ== =+kMD -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GPL v3?
On Tue, 2007-04-03 at 23:43 -0400, Stefan Monnier wrote: Just for the fun of it, I'd be interested in a little poll: 1 - are you generally in favor or against the GPLv3? Yes. 2 - are you a Free Software supporter, or an Open Source supporter? Yes. My gut feeling is that the answers are strongly correlated. Imagine that. -- greg, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Novell's Directory Services is a competitive product to Microsoft's Active Directory in much the same way that the Saturn V is a competitive product to those dinky little model rockets that kids light off down at the playfield. -- Thane Walkup -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GPL v3?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Greg Folkert wrote: On Tue, 2007-04-03 at 23:43 -0400, Stefan Monnier wrote: Just for the fun of it, I'd be interested in a little poll: 1 - are you generally in favor or against the GPLv3? Yes. That answer says nothing. Analogy: Do you prefer chocolate or vanilla ice cream? Yes. My answer to poll: Generally in favor. 2 - are you a Free Software supporter, or an Open Source supporter? Yes. Same. My answer: Both, prefer Open Source, accept Free. My gut feeling is that the answers are strongly correlated. Imagine that. Agreed. Joe - -- Registerd Linux user #443289 at http://counter.li.org/ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGE1URiXBCVWpc5J4RArhLAJsH9R0P50tfxpCGMYjEsCek0rY0nwCdHyn4 S4pBwJNaRYyO88oe9pVU5Ow= =UVKR -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GPL v3?
Joe Hart [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Greg Folkert wrote: On Tue, 2007-04-03 at 23:43 -0400, Stefan Monnier wrote: Just for the fun of it, I'd be interested in a little poll: 1 - are you generally in favor or against the GPLv3? Yes. That answer says nothing. Analogy: Do you prefer chocolate or vanilla ice cream? Yes. Actually, the answer _does_ mean something. In programming terms, if a is true or b is true then the whole statement returns true. It is a joke. -- Robert D. Crawford [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mieux vaut tard que jamais! [ Better late than never ] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GPL v3?
On Wed, 2007-04-04 at 05:02 -0500, Robert D. Crawford wrote: Joe Hart [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Greg Folkert wrote: On Tue, 2007-04-03 at 23:43 -0400, Stefan Monnier wrote: Just for the fun of it, I'd be interested in a little poll: 1 - are you generally in favor or against the GPLv3? Yes. That answer says nothing. Analogy: Do you prefer chocolate or vanilla ice cream? Yes. Actually, the answer _does_ mean something. In programming terms, if a is true or b is true then the whole statement returns true. It is a joke. Cool. someone got it. They were an *OR* statement. There should actually be 4 questions there. -- greg, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Novell's Directory Services is a competitive product to Microsoft's Active Directory in much the same way that the Saturn V is a competitive product to those dinky little model rockets that kids light off down at the playfield. -- Thane Walkup -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GPL v3?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, Apr 04, 2007 at 09:34:18AM -0400, Greg Folkert wrote:
On Wed, 2007-04-04 at 05:02 -0500, Robert D. Crawford wrote:
Joe Hart [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Greg Folkert wrote:
On Tue, 2007-04-03 at 23:43 -0400, Stefan Monnier wrote:
Just for the fun of it, I'd be interested in a little poll:
1 - are you generally in favor or against the GPLv3?
Yes.
That answer says nothing. Analogy: Do you prefer chocolate or vanilla
ice cream? Yes.
Actually, the answer _does_ mean something. In programming terms, if a
is true or b is true then the whole statement returns true.
It is a joke.
Cool. someone got it. They were an *OR* statement. There should actually
be 4 questions there.
If you are in favor of GPLv3 {
return 1;
}
elif you are against the GPLv3 {
return 0;
}
else {
break;
}
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFGE61u/o7Q/FCvPe0RAvupAJ4u6ur5j82zNGTDsD6gz6TpzpGZkACgnHnj
RQdDlU4kW4X6IjFL8WpIINs=
=hPRK
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GPL v3?
On Wed, 2007-04-04 at 09:51 -0400, Michael Pobega wrote:
On Wed, Apr 04, 2007 at 09:34:18AM -0400, Greg Folkert wrote:
On Wed, 2007-04-04 at 05:02 -0500, Robert D. Crawford wrote:
Joe Hart [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Greg Folkert wrote:
On Tue, 2007-04-03 at 23:43 -0400, Stefan Monnier wrote:
Just for the fun of it, I'd be interested in a little poll:
1 - are you generally in favor or against the GPLv3?
Yes.
That answer says nothing. Analogy: Do you prefer chocolate or vanilla
ice cream? Yes.
Actually, the answer _does_ mean something. In programming terms, if a
is true or b is true then the whole statement returns true.
It is a joke.
Cool. someone got it. They were an *OR* statement. There should actually
be 4 questions there.
If you are in favor of GPLv3 {
return 1;
}
elif you are against the GPLv3 {
return 0;
}
else {
break;
}
254 undefined error.
I am both for and against the GPLv3. I am all for updating it, but the
wording and additional restrictions are appalling, none the least the
motivations for updating it, and now the attitude RMS has against any
Interviewer questioning the process and contents is exceptionally
appalling.
Especially when interviewed by one of the GPLv3's biggest openly for it
supporter. He was very offensive and very bitter and short and just
generally an ass.
I am really still out on deliberations as to what should really be
there.
--
greg, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Novell's Directory Services is a competitive product to Microsoft's
Active Directory in much the same way that the Saturn V is a competitive
product to those dinky little model rockets that kids light off down at
the playfield. -- Thane Walkup
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GPL v3?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Greg Folkert wrote: On Wed, 2007-04-04 at 05:02 -0500, Robert D. Crawford wrote: Joe Hart [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Greg Folkert wrote: On Tue, 2007-04-03 at 23:43 -0400, Stefan Monnier wrote: Just for the fun of it, I'd be interested in a little poll: 1 - are you generally in favor or against the GPLv3? Yes. That answer says nothing. Analogy: Do you prefer chocolate or vanilla ice cream? Yes. Actually, the answer _does_ mean something. In programming terms, if a is true or b is true then the whole statement returns true. It is a joke. Cool. someone got it. They were an *OR* statement. There should actually be 4 questions there. I get it, but you still didn't answer the poll. So let's put it this way: Are you in favor of the GPLv3 (y/n)? Do you prefer for things to stay with GPLv2 (y/n)? Do you think that all of this is nonsense and irrelevant (y/n)? Are we board because there are so few questions being asked (y/n)? Now there are four questions. :; Joe - -- Registerd Linux user #443289 at http://counter.li.org/ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGE7hqiXBCVWpc5J4RAqdxAJ4udNes/m6KcqUgTWvh4jxvoeR+hACgn9fL Vj0LCFE09cNXnOjQVzTkOFs= =jpdL -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GPL v3?
On Wed, 2007-04-04 at 16:38 +0200, Joe Hart wrote: Greg Folkert wrote: On Wed, 2007-04-04 at 05:02 -0500, Robert D. Crawford wrote: Joe Hart [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Greg Folkert wrote: On Tue, 2007-04-03 at 23:43 -0400, Stefan Monnier wrote: Just for the fun of it, I'd be interested in a little poll: 1 - are you generally in favor or against the GPLv3? Yes. That answer says nothing. Analogy: Do you prefer chocolate or vanilla ice cream? Yes. Actually, the answer _does_ mean something. In programming terms, if a is true or b is true then the whole statement returns true. It is a joke. Cool. someone got it. They were an *OR* statement. There should actually be 4 questions there. I get it, but you still didn't answer the poll. So let's put it this way: Are you in favor of the GPLv3 (y/n)? Both, I am in favor of changing it to fit the environment better. But the changes and wording being used currently still do not sit well with me. I see much vindictiveness and angst in even the recent draft, meaning it isn't right, needing further refinement/rewording/re-thinking. Do you prefer for things to stay with GPLv2 (y/n)? I would, there is enough language to handle these skirting companies, all that needs to be done is taking them to court and enforcing the existing license version. Do you think that all of this is nonsense and irrelevant (y/n)? I do, but I don't. I see the GPLv2 as a valid, well tested, well understood license. This feels like Robocop2 (I think) when his rules of engagement went from 4 (with one hidden) to about 3000, many many rules contradicted others in weird ways. Taking away the ability to do his job effectively. Are we board because there are so few questions being asked (y/n)? ^ I am not stiff and inflexible. Bored, yes. Waiting for Etch, yes. -- greg, [EMAIL PROTECTED] To practice properly the Art of Peace, you must: Calm the spirit and return to the source, cleanse the body and spirit by removing all malice, selfishness and desire. Be ever grateful for the gifts received from the Universe, your family, Mother Nature, and your fellow human beings. Morihei Ueshiba founder of Aikido Recommended book - Invincible Warrior, by John Stevens -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GPL v3?
Joe Hart writes: Are you in favor of the GPLv3 (y/n)? Do you prefer for things to stay with GPLv2 (y/n)? I oppose GPLv3 and favor GPLv2 (not that my opinion is of any consequence). I do so precisely because I strongly support Free Software. -- John Hasler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GPL v3?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 [snip] Are we board because there are so few questions being asked (y/n)? ^ I am not stiff and inflexible. Bored, yes. Waiting for Etch, yes. Now it's you ruining my joke :; I was referring to Sid being not very active. I think that goes for all of us. It's only what, 4 months late, not that Debian has any time tables. Joe - -- Registerd Linux user #443289 at http://counter.li.org/ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGE802iXBCVWpc5J4RAucOAKCILb/xJ2DCf3QddWrF6zhSxTgvsQCgh6GA xyF9WUXrULhQlPwrmNC1JkM= =3EDG -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GPL v3?
On Tue, Apr 03, 2007 at 10:58:49AM -0400, Douglas Allan Tutty wrote: I wasn't suggesting an OT diversion. I am wondering if anyone who reads these things better than me sees any problems with v3 in relation to Debian. As in, if gcc or any of the fundamental GNU utils (we are GNU/Linux) comes down in a new version (say the next gcc for example) at GPL v3, will this prove a problem. Right now, a lot of GNU docs aren't included (e.g. see tar man page) because they're under the GFDL with some clauses incompatible with Debian. Is there any concern that GNU utils (not docs) will become incompatible? Can anybody explain what is the difference between GPL v2 and GPL v3. And why is versionn 3 considered not good by some people, also same for version 2. How was GPL v2 used that it has raised the need for new version? Bare in maind that I could read both licences but probably would not understand what is there talking about. Actually I read GPL v2 and as I understand it is: if you use code under GPL your program has too be under GPL. Is this not correct (somebody suggested that come companies find legal way to use GPL code for proprietary program - how to)? Misko -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GPL v3?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Misko wrote: Can anybody explain what is the difference between GPL v2 and GPL v3. And why is versionn 3 considered not good by some people, also same for version 2. Mainly the difference is that v3 has clauses to prevent people from restricting users what they can do with things that the software makes, such as putting DRM in media. How was GPL v2 used that it has raised the need for new version? Bare in maind that I could read both licences but probably would not understand what is there talking about. Actually I read GPL v2 and as I understand it is: if you use code under GPL your program has too be under GPL. Is this not correct (somebody suggested that come companies find legal way to use GPL code for proprietary program - how to)? I am not exactly sure how these companies justify doing what they do with code that is under the GPL, but they do it none the less. AFAIK, they add functionality to the code then refuse to release the source code, or make it work only on proprietary hardware and release the code, but it doesn't help if you can't get the hardware to run it on. I will not metion names because I don't want to get slapped with a law suit. Just make sure you read license agreements before you install things. Joe - -- Registerd Linux user #443289 at http://counter.li.org/ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGE9/miXBCVWpc5J4RArI4AJ9ksJd3bm0XGa0iIGpabCs7dH5a5wCeNRfX OtVZUOAFh8pcZq7cZfc2tJ4= =3QMS -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GPL v3?
Misko [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: as I understand it is: if you use code under GPL your program has too be under GPL. I believe this is only true if you intend to share your code. You can make any changes you like and keep them to yourself if you don't intend to allow others to see/use it at all. Of course, and at the same time, who would know? Cybe R. Wizard -- Nice computers don't go down. Larry Niven, Steven Barnes The Barsoom Project -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GPL v3?
Joe writes: Mainly the difference is that v3 has clauses to prevent people from restricting users what they can do with things that the software makes, such as putting DRM in media. It also attempts to limit enforcement of their patents. It is so complex as to be very difficult to understand. It will be completely incomprehensible to those who struggle with GPLv2. I am not exactly sure how these companies justify doing what they do with code that is under the GPL, but they do it none the less. AFAIK, they add functionality to the code then refuse to release the source code... If you know of such instances contact the copyright owners so that they can take appropriate action. I will not metion names because I don't want to get slapped with a law suit. So you are not sure of your facts. -- John Hasler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GPL v3?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 John Hasler wrote: Joe writes: Mainly the difference is that v3 has clauses to prevent people from restricting users what they can do with things that the software makes, such as putting DRM in media. It also attempts to limit enforcement of their patents. It is so complex as to be very difficult to understand. It will be completely incomprehensible to those who struggle with GPLv2. I am not exactly sure how these companies justify doing what they do with code that is under the GPL, but they do it none the less. AFAIK, they add functionality to the code then refuse to release the source code... If you know of such instances contact the copyright owners so that they can take appropriate action. I will not metion names because I don't want to get slapped with a law suit. So you are not sure of your facts. Oh, I am quite sure. I will point out one, just so you can see what I mean. http://wiki.freespire.org/index.php/Freespire_End_User_License_Agreement Now, granted, they cannot enforce this for more than 3/4 of the software, but that is not clear from the text. Someone coming from the Windows world would think it very similiar to Windows' license, so they wouldn't realize how against the GPL it is. I don't think Linspire can sue me for saying that I find their license very restrictive. Note that Freespire and Linspire have the same License Agreement. I will have you know that I sent messages to Patrick Green, who is the head of the Freespire community, but he failed to respond to my query about the license. I doubt very seriously if Kevin Carmony would either. I specifically asked how a developer is supposed to help with their system when they only are allowed to use the object code, and if there was a different license for developers. This of course is quite off-topic to this list, but I don't take kindly to people telling me that I don't know what I am talking about. There are other examples, but this one is clear enough. Joe - -- Registerd Linux user #443289 at http://counter.li.org/ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGE/fqiXBCVWpc5J4RArl6AJ4nYf7c6eVrgPL/uouE10hPqURSGgCffwGF e1/8Jfsk76RXHZO0H6cW8yY= =hdIQ -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GPL v3?
On Wed, Apr 04, 2007 10:36:28 AM -0400, Greg Folkert ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: I am both for and against the GPLv3. I am all for updating it, but the wording and additional restrictions are appalling, none the least the motivations for updating it, and now the attitude RMS has against any Interviewer questioning the process and contents is exceptionally appalling. Especially when interviewed by one of the GPLv3's biggest openly for it supporter. Sorry, which interview and supporter? Links? I really missed this one. Thanks, Marco -- The best way to make everybody love Free Standards and Free Software: http://digifreedom.net/node/73 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GPL v3?
On Wed, 2007-04-04 at 21:20 +0200, M. Fioretti wrote: On Wed, Apr 04, 2007 10:36:28 AM -0400, Greg Folkert ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: I am both for and against the GPLv3. I am all for updating it, but the wording and additional restrictions are appalling, none the least the motivations for updating it, and now the attitude RMS has against any Interviewer questioning the process and contents is exceptionally appalling. Especially when interviewed by one of the GPLv3's biggest openly for it supporter. Sorry, which interview and supporter? Links? I really missed this one. http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20070403114157109 Pamela Jones and Groklaw, she is supporting it, mainly on the belief of patents bad standing. I say Patents BAD only if they are used for keeping progress from happening. Patents GOOD if they are used to promote the industry and are freely usable... like Patent pledges and giving Patents to the OIN or other similar organizations. -- greg, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Novell's Directory Services is a competitive product to Microsoft's Active Directory in much the same way that the Saturn V is a competitive product to those dinky little model rockets that kids light off down at the playfield. -- Thane Walkup -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GPL v3?
Greg Folkert writes: I say Patents BAD only if they are used for keeping progress from happening. Software patents are an unmitigated evil. However, attempting to fix a patent problem with a copyright license is a serious error. -- John Hasler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GPL v3?
if you use code under GPL your program has too be under GPL. That's the gist of it, although it's only if you distribute your program that this comes into effect. Also this is not really the end goal, but rather its means. The end goal is to make it possible for anybody to fix/adapt/share/improve the resulting code. Is this not correct (somebody suggested that come companies find legal way to use GPL code for proprietary program - how to)? How can someone work around that? Well: 1 - by not distributing the program. E.g. run the program on your web-server and only let people use it remotely in their browser. Some piece of code might be run on your browser (sent from the web-server), so presumably this part of the code would still need to be GPL'd, but the rest doesn't. 2 - by embedding the code in a piece of hardware which refuses to run anything else. E.g. the hardware keeps an MD5 checksum of the blessed firmware, so even if the GPL forces them to distribute their code, their customers can't fix/adapt/improve it anyway. 3 - by obtaining a patent on some parts of the code. The GPL forces you to distribute the source code, but nobody can use this source code without getting a license for the patent. So people can't freely share it. Stefan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GPL v3?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 John Hasler wrote: Greg Folkert writes: I say Patents BAD only if they are used for keeping progress from happening. Software patents are an unmitigated evil. However, attempting to fix a patent problem with a copyright license is a serious error. Agreed, but how else can one do it if congress is unwilling to make a new law or repeal an existing one? Joe - -- Registerd Linux user #443289 at http://counter.li.org/ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGFIhbiXBCVWpc5J4RAj2pAKCSrs01qjBQ8S+iz/zg6+H2OdwlTQCfclre 2RbiNx9SNPpD2MZjCPZH2Mw= =oMJs -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GPL v3?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Tuesday 03 April 2007 02:27, John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] was heard to say: As to why I say nothing can be done, what I see as major defects are inevitable consequences of what Richard clearly views as essential features. Beautifully said, in clear, concise language. Which _demonstrates_ my objection to the GPL.3 (For the syntactically challenged, what means I don't have to agree with what Mr. Hasler said, what I like is how he said it.) What I believe the GPL.3 does right is to simplify and clarify. A great deal of what is different between the GPL.3 and the GPL.2 is linguistic optimization. Would that it had been left at that. Curt- - -- September 11th, 2001 The proudest day for gun control and central planning advocates in American history -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iQEVAwUBRhJUdy9Y35yItIgBAQIOXgf/W8SACjSnRR6srijM/9VPOhxdeTlwl8/0 oomEJnTaABRMwlscmkJ44k29/fLyJuU2Nw3HnxVrceI7b3jwN510y+rk4WIuu9Ie z6fyYKIpC1KO4WPTPlI+tWx3cd5uemaiNF6PgCdVHSSHffUAqtBOpXsSe6vneLjI 23MSiP4+hxtYvIKjVFr33OLoKXG+2uza79Gh/eSsavS+ZbN27WTASnZytjhsT2N6 xwYoV5Pm/INv8ZI0lRBGD91csA6s8M1hGMsxud6g/C0u2RHIGE7Hi4B0eAhcgz6m igQn/5xsl/mlK7YdQPr72Xk9W49R7EIBlfRyOpZERAVo6ZYI6v+s1Q== =ndzc -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GPL v3?
On Mon, 2007-04-02 at 22:34 -0500, John Hasler wrote: I wrote: It's appalling, but there is nothing to be done. Doug writes: Would you elaborate? It left me concerned but I'm not a language lawyer so I don't really understand. You've put your finger on a major defect. If you're appalled, presumably you 'get it'. This is not the right forum for me to express my opinions as to what is wrong with GPLV3. It is being discussed extensively and knowledgeably on Groklaw. While most there are supporters, they are discussing it reasonably objectively. As to why I say nothing can be done, what I see as major defects are inevitable consequences of what Richard clearly views as essential features. Even PJ doesn't get it. All she sees is the Glorious GPL getting an update. Not that it is all bad, just that much of the additional stuff is... appalling. The GPLv2 is very good and has enough language in it already, but some feel the asterix and tivo stuff seriously violate the spirit. Nah, they just skirt along the line. Which is fine. About all I can say without going into a long and very OT response (tirade as some would call it). And since many people are complaining about OT stuff already. I'll stop. -- greg, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Novell's Directory Services is a competitive product to Microsoft's Active Directory in much the same way that the Saturn V is a competitive product to those dinky little model rockets that kids light off down at the playfield. -- Thane Walkup -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GPL v3?
On Tue, Apr 03, 2007 at 10:15:52AM -0400, Greg Folkert wrote: On Mon, 2007-04-02 at 22:34 -0500, John Hasler wrote: It's appalling, but there is nothing to be done. Doug writes: Would you elaborate? It left me concerned but I'm not a language lawyer so I don't really understand. You've put your finger on a major defect. Even PJ doesn't get it. All she sees is the Glorious GPL getting an update. Not that it is all bad, just that much of the additional stuff is... appalling. The GPLv2 is very good and has enough language in it already, but some feel the asterix and tivo stuff seriously violate the spirit. Nah, they just skirt along the line. Which is fine. About all I can say without going into a long and very OT response (tirade as some would call it). I wasn't suggesting an OT diversion. I am wondering if anyone who reads these things better than me sees any problems with v3 in relation to Debian. As in, if gcc or any of the fundamental GNU utils (we are GNU/Linux) comes down in a new version (say the next gcc for example) at GPL v3, will this prove a problem. Right now, a lot of GNU docs aren't included (e.g. see tar man page) because they're under the GFDL with some clauses incompatible with Debian. Is there any concern that GNU utils (not docs) will become incompatible? Doug. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GPL v3?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Greg Folkert wrote: On Mon, 2007-04-02 at 22:34 -0500, John Hasler wrote: I wrote: It's appalling, but there is nothing to be done. Doug writes: Would you elaborate? It left me concerned but I'm not a language lawyer so I don't really understand. You've put your finger on a major defect. If you're appalled, presumably you 'get it'. This is not the right forum for me to express my opinions as to what is wrong with GPLV3. It is being discussed extensively and knowledgeably on Groklaw. While most there are supporters, they are discussing it reasonably objectively. As to why I say nothing can be done, what I see as major defects are inevitable consequences of what Richard clearly views as essential features. Even PJ doesn't get it. All she sees is the Glorious GPL getting an update. Not that it is all bad, just that much of the additional stuff is... appalling. The GPLv2 is very good and has enough language in it already, but some feel the asterix and tivo stuff seriously violate the spirit. Nah, they just skirt along the line. Which is fine. About all I can say without going into a long and very OT response (tirade as some would call it). And since many people are complaining about OT stuff already. I'll stop. Greg, I am very interested in the GPLv3. This tirade of yours, I would like to hear so if you'd like to voice your opinion, I'm asking. If you think it's not appropriate here, then send it to me off list please. Joe - -- Registerd Linux user #443289 at http://counter.li.org/ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGEnasiXBCVWpc5J4RAhu/AKCdlWFUL/AzDiSIQ8awWQUZwnb6kACgzVkF glACCOXI2taWrydBQHIty9k= =mHEs -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GPL v3?
Joe Hart [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Greg, I am very interested in the GPLv3. This tirade of yours, I would like to hear so if you'd like to voice your opinion, I'm asking. If you think it's not appropriate here, then send it to me off list please. Joe If off list then please CC me too. BTW, this would be a way to have OT threads without bothering the list ;) Regards, Andrei -- If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough. (Albert Einstein) signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: GPL v3 ?
Michael Pobega [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wrote: I'd like to know what the more knowledgeable people here would have to say about the GPLv3 though, since I really don't know much about it except that it covers DRM (Which previous versions of the GPL didn't touch). Does anyone have a list of the differences in plain English? (This is why I prefer the BSD license! Short and sweet.) A good start (particularly when you want to know how it affects Debian) would be the debian-legal mailing list, who have just started discussing the latest draft. Have a look in the archives to find discussions about previous drafts, the current thread is at http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2007/04/msg1.html These are mainly 'is it DFSG free' comments, but that should answer some of the questions people have. Matt -- Matthew Johnson signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: GPL v3?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Tue, Apr 03, 2007 at 05:45:48PM +0200, Joe Hart wrote: Greg Folkert wrote: On Mon, 2007-04-02 at 22:34 -0500, John Hasler wrote: I wrote: It's appalling, but there is nothing to be done. Doug writes: Would you elaborate? It left me concerned but I'm not a language lawyer so I don't really understand. You've put your finger on a major defect. If you're appalled, presumably you 'get it'. This is not the right forum for me to express my opinions as to what is wrong with GPLV3. It is being discussed extensively and knowledgeably on Groklaw. While most there are supporters, they are discussing it reasonably objectively. As to why I say nothing can be done, what I see as major defects are inevitable consequences of what Richard clearly views as essential features. Even PJ doesn't get it. All she sees is the Glorious GPL getting an update. Not that it is all bad, just that much of the additional stuff is... appalling. The GPLv2 is very good and has enough language in it already, but some feel the asterix and tivo stuff seriously violate the spirit. Nah, they just skirt along the line. Which is fine. About all I can say without going into a long and very OT response (tirade as some would call it). And since many people are complaining about OT stuff already. I'll stop. Greg, I am very interested in the GPLv3. This tirade of yours, I would like to hear so if you'd like to voice your opinion, I'm asking. If you think it's not appropriate here, then send it to me off list please. Joe Actually I'd like to hear it too. The GNU GPL is very Debian related, seeing as Debian is one of the only distros with a strong voice when it comes to free software. And I'm very interested to hear the legal side of things, since I really haven't taken the time to wade through the GNU GPL (Not even v2). -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFGEpqL/o7Q/FCvPe0RAtknAJ4umcEIgcB2xkc6TQqhbh6SEpV2RACgiVDQ n3pubg/AqEaCsen3/f5gaUA= =fEqP -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GPL v3?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Tuesday 03 April 2007 11:12, Greg Folkert [EMAIL PROTECTED] was heard to say: And since many people are complaining about OT stuff already. I'll stop. I'm not sure that discussion of the license under which (virtually) all of Debian is licensed can be called off topic. The GPLv2 is very good and has enough language in it already, but some feel the asterix and tivo stuff seriously violate the spirit. Nah, they just skirt along the line. Which is fine. And the furor they create _by_ skirting the line reinforces and reinvigorates community awareness of what the GPL stands for, which helps maintain efforts to keep GPL'd software users, like Tivo, honest. Curt- - -- September 11th, 2001 The proudest day for gun control and central planning advocates in American history -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iQEVAwUBRhKVzi9Y35yItIgBAQKTBQf6AxaRpc//x9HU6YaZ5vonOw8AyiCc9AMk kjZkFFlJe9iJSSHfSBkWh6OVlDVNnRK4d7z//Yv47E6M5dSbhiAE6XX0zKzXZzPM 4EHvoNgBgw2Gpn7qO4gWKiOEXyBhadl54AhgSwzEHcC5onmcWb5XdG/Su67sGLrZ 0shtRxXYXRoGVY1C0Nx9RCcoknBhbFvsPJYafbasl+oltbPYsj1z6o1wVLHb7U7M PoxuTKWwXzimL2iiER+ZxBA8bx1aoJ4si18rJOAvIRRZIzwLZxm0cYDibkolnXUZ rDpXAac0827XB2K2w3TMqmJq+eRz1+URmq61rQcT82GM9fFqlwcp8A== =sq+A -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GPL v3?
On Tue, Apr 03, 2007 at 05:45:48PM +0200, Joe Hart wrote: About all I can say without going into a long and very OT response (tirade as some would call it). I am very interested in the GPLv3. This tirade of yours, I would like to hear so if you'd like to voice your opinion, I'm asking. If you think it's not appropriate here, then send it to me off list please. Joe ditto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GPL v3?
On 04/03/2007 10:50 AM, Joe Hart wrote: Greg Folkert wrote: This is not the right forum for me to express my opinions as to what is wrong with GPLV3. This tirade of yours, I would like to hear so if you'd like to voice your opinion, I'm asking. I too am interested. Do you think we can get by without being flamed for yet another OT post? ;-) -- Glen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GPL v3?
On Tue, 2007-04-03 at 13:58 -0400, Curt Howland wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Tuesday 03 April 2007 11:12, Greg Folkert [EMAIL PROTECTED] was heard to say: And since many people are complaining about OT stuff already. I'll stop. I'm not sure that discussion of the license under which (virtually) all of Debian is licensed can be called off topic. debian-legal@lists.debian.org The GPLv2 is very good and has enough language in it already, but some feel the asterix and tivo stuff seriously violate the spirit. Nah, they just skirt along the line. Which is fine. And the furor they create _by_ skirting the line reinforces and reinvigorates community awareness of what the GPL stands for, which helps maintain efforts to keep GPL'd software users, like Tivo, honest. So, let me ask you, when you drive the speed limit, you are skirting the law. Or if in a 55MPH speed limit area and you drive 55MPH... exactly, are you are skirting the law (and therefore staying within the limits of the law) or are you breaking the spirit of the law and should be punished extremely? Here in, lies my problems with the GPLv2 isn't good enough and the GPLv3 must impose additional restrictions camps. This will cause harm to something that has for so long, been a guiding light to the FOSS community/movement. Why move the lighthouse further out into the sea at such a cost, when it already is just fine where it is. And Please understand this is the summary version. By no means is it my complete version. debian-legal is the place for this. -- greg, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Novell's Directory Services is a competitive product to Microsoft's Active Directory in much the same way that the Saturn V is a competitive product to those dinky little model rockets that kids light off down at the playfield. -- Thane Walkup -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GPL v3?
On Tue, 2007-04-03 at 17:45 +0200, Joe Hart wrote: Greg, I am very interested in the GPLv3. This tirade of yours, I would like to hear so if you'd like to voice your opinion, I'm asking. If you think it's not appropriate here, then send it to me off list please. debian-legal@lists.debian.org is the proper venue. Sorry, I just gave a summary just short of this to Curt Howland. Here it is the summary. ---included message in response to Curt Howland: So, let me ask you, when you drive the speed limit, you are skirting the law. Or if in a 55MPH speed limit area and you drive 55MPH... exactly, are you are skirting the law (and therefore staying within the limits of the law) or are you breaking the spirit of the law and should be punished extremely? Here in, lies my problems with the GPLv2 isn't good enough and the GPLv3 must impose additional restrictions camps. This will cause harm to something that has for so long, been a guiding light to the FOSS community/movement. Why move the lighthouse further out into the sea at such a cost, when it already is just fine where it is. And Please understand this is the summary version. By no means is it my complete version. debian-legal is the place for this. ---End included message So, as you can see, I actually am seeing things in a practical rather than theoretical light in regards to the GPL update. -- greg, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Novell's Directory Services is a competitive product to Microsoft's Active Directory in much the same way that the Saturn V is a competitive product to those dinky little model rockets that kids light off down at the playfield. -- Thane Walkup -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GPL v3?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Greg Folkert wrote: On Tue, 2007-04-03 at 17:45 +0200, Joe Hart wrote: Greg, I am very interested in the GPLv3. This tirade of yours, I would like to hear so if you'd like to voice your opinion, I'm asking. If you think it's not appropriate here, then send it to me off list please. debian-legal@lists.debian.org is the proper venue. Sorry, I just gave a summary just short of this to Curt Howland. Here it is the summary. ---included message in response to Curt Howland: So, let me ask you, when you drive the speed limit, you are skirting the law. Or if in a 55MPH speed limit area and you drive 55MPH... exactly, are you are skirting the law (and therefore staying within the limits of the law) or are you breaking the spirit of the law and should be punished extremely? Skirting the law, no. Obeying the law, yes. Otherwise they would post a lower speed limit. Here in, lies my problems with the GPLv2 isn't good enough and the GPLv3 must impose additional restrictions camps. This will cause harm to something that has for so long, been a guiding light to the FOSS community/movement. Why move the lighthouse further out into the sea at such a cost, when it already is just fine where it is. Well, it appears that it isn't. It seems that companies have found loopholes to create proprietary software using GPL code. I don't know if anyone has actually taken any of these companies to court and challenged them on the issue, but in the meantime it seems the best thing to do is to close the loopholes. I can agree with you that v3 as it is now is not exactly the best thing, but it is still a draft and subject to change. It is getting closer. There is reason to move the lighthouse if the level of the sea changes. And Please understand this is the summary version. By no means is it my complete version. debian-legal is the place for this. ---End included message So, as you can see, I actually am seeing things in a practical rather than theoretical light in regards to the GPL update. - -- Registerd Linux user #443289 at http://counter.li.org/ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGErL5iXBCVWpc5J4RAuH3AKC20dBjVQaQRZ3a+W8FulwHtznBGQCgiJT2 /QyUfDOL18Gh1wO+6evn3vk= =va3r -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GPL v3?
On Tue, 2007-04-03 at 14:18 -0400, Michael Pobega wrote: Actually I'd like to hear it too. The GNU GPL is very Debian related, seeing as Debian is one of the only distros with a strong voice when it comes to free software. And I'm very interested to hear the legal side of things, since I really haven't taken the time to wade through the GNU GPL (Not even v2). Yes, I'd be interested to hear too, even if (as it's likely) I'd disagree with it. No one has posted against an OT thread discussing this, and seems like a lot of people are for it. I don't want to subscribe to debian-legal just for this, honestly. I'd just go ahead and post it. Andrew -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GPL v3?
So, let me ask you, when you drive the speed limit, you are skirting the law. Or if in a 55MPH speed limit area and you drive 55MPH... exactly, are you are skirting the law (and therefore staying within the limits of the law) or are you breaking the spirit of the law and should be punished extremely? Reasoning by analogy is a good way to end up with complete nonsense. Just for the fun of it, I'd be interested in a little poll: 1 - are you generally in favor or against the GPLv3? 2 - are you a Free Software supporter, or an Open Source supporter? My gut feeling is that the answers are strongly correlated. Stefan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
GPL v3?
I just saw the headline (and read the article) on the draft for GPL v3 that was released recently on http://www.sysadminmag.com. Since much of debian is covered under v2 but has the clause or any later version, what implications does this have for debian? Doug. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GPL v3?
On Mon, 2007-04-02 at 22:26 -0400, Douglas Allan Tutty wrote: I just saw the headline (and read the article) on the draft for GPL v3 that was released recently on http://www.sysadminmag.com. Since much of debian is covered under v2 but has the clause or any later version, what implications does this have for debian? Not necessarily an answer to your question, but I read that Linus Torvalds is becoming a bit more open to the GPLv3 with some of the latest iterations we've seen. I'd certainly like to see the kernel go GPLv3...granted parts of the kernel could go anyway without Linus' explicit blessing, but after all the kernel is a flagship free software project... Andrew Doug. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GPL v3?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Mon, Apr 02, 2007 at 10:26:01PM -0400, Douglas Allan Tutty wrote: I just saw the headline (and read the article) on the draft for GPL v3 that was released recently on http://www.sysadminmag.com. Since much of debian is covered under v2 but has the clause or any later version, what implications does this have for debian? Doug. I'm not one to say if Debian will convert, but I'm pretty sure it be mostly beneficial if they do. GPLv3 covers things v2 didn't touch (Which is of course, why they're rewriting another GPL license). I'd like to know what the more knowledgeable people here would have to say about the GPLv3 though, since I really don't know much about it except that it covers DRM (Which previous versions of the GPL didn't touch). Does anyone have a list of the differences in plain English? (This is why I prefer the BSD license! Short and sweet.) -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFGEb6U/o7Q/FCvPe0RAh76AKCCPgeRyxYP8fgll+ctVFRBe492agCgkefp qUxsEsFpUXvltpEq26nem7A= =pr0L -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GPL v3?
I'm not one to say if Debian will convert, but I'm pretty sure it be mostly beneficial if they do. Debian can't convert. The copyrights in most packages are owned by the upstream authors. The copyrights in native packages such as Pppconfig are owned by the individual DDs who wrote them. I'd like to know what the more knowledgeable people here would have to say about the GPLv3... It's appalling, but there is nothing to be done. -- John Hasler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GPL v3?
On Mon, Apr 02, 2007 at 09:59:23PM -0500, John Hasler wrote: I'd like to know what the more knowledgeable people here would have to say about the GPLv3... It's appalling, but there is nothing to be done. Would you elaborate? It left me concerned but I'm not a language lawyer so I don't really understand. If you're appauled, presumably you 'get it'. Doug. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GPL v3?
On Mon, Apr 02, 2007 at 10:33:24PM -0400, Andrew Barr wrote: I'd certainly like to see the kernel go GPLv3...granted parts of the kernel could go anyway without Linus' explicit blessing, but after all the kernel is a flagship free software project... What do you see v3 doing for the kernel that you would like it to move to v3? Doug. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GPL v3?
Andrew writes: Not necessarily an answer to your question, but I read that Linus Torvalds is becoming a bit more open to the GPLv3 with some of the latest iterations we've seen. Considering the number of authors who would have to be either convinced to convert or be written out, conversion of the kernel seems unlikely. -- John Hasler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GPL v3?
I wrote: It's appalling, but there is nothing to be done. Doug writes: Would you elaborate? It left me concerned but I'm not a language lawyer so I don't really understand. You've put your finger on a major defect. If you're appalled, presumably you 'get it'. This is not the right forum for me to express my opinions as to what is wrong with GPLV3. It is being discussed extensively and knowledgeably on Groklaw. While most there are supporters, they are discussing it reasonably objectively. As to why I say nothing can be done, what I see as major defects are inevitable consequences of what Richard clearly views as essential features. -- John Hasler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GPL v3?
Andrew Barr [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I'd certainly like to see the kernel go GPLv3...granted parts of the kernel could go anyway without Linus' explicit blessing, but after all the kernel is a flagship free software project... Not if GPLv3 is incompatible with GPLv2. Linus doesn't have much say in the license of the kernel since the different codes are owned by the different authors (unlike FSF software that is owned by FSF). They would either have to track down all the contributors or rewrite the code for the stuff owned by people they can't track down or for people who don't want to relicense their code. And that was the intention of the kernel too, which is why they removed the ..or later text from the standard license text. -- John L. Fjellstad web: http://www.fjellstad.org/ Quis custodiet ipsos custodes -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
OT: FSF's web tool for GPL v3 commenting. Where? Use it on code?
Does anyone know where I can find the tool behind FSF's GPL v3 commenting[1]? It is a rather cool idea, and I'd really like to see if it can be adapted to allow comments on source code. (If there's already such a tool then I'd be most interested in that as well, of course.) /M [1]: http://gplv3.fsf.org/comments/gplv3-draft-2.html -- Magnus Therning (OpenPGP: 0xAB4DFBA4) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://therning.org/magnus Software is not manufactured, it is something you write and publish. Keep Europe free from software patents, we do not want censorship by patent law on written works. Increasingly, people seem to misinterpret complexity as sophistication, which is baffling--the incomprehensible should cause suspicion rather than admiration. -- Niklaus Wirth pgpxOygq3nRmb.pgp Description: PGP signature
