Re: RFC: proposed GPLv3 license exception draft

> First off, thanks for everyone who provided comments on this issue, > , > on this list or off-list! FYI, there has been more feedback on the Open MPI Development list:

Re: RFC: proposed GPLv3 license exception draft

Hi Eric, * Eric Blake wrote on Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 10:05:38PM CEST: > Ralf Wildenhues writes: > > 1) The Exception does not take into account some types of outputs from > > programs that Autoconf distributes, namely Autotest testsuite scripts > > which are generated in a similar fashion as config

Re: RFC: proposed GPLv3 license exception draft

Ralf Wildenhues gmx.de> writes: > Below, I try to summarize the issues that have been brought up, and > will ask the FSF legal dept. about them; I'm writing the text mostly > as I will send it to them, adding some explanations. If I missed out > anything important, or formulated wrongly, then pl

Re: RFC: proposed GPLv3 license exception draft

First off, thanks for everyone who provided comments on this issue, , on this list or off-list! Below, I try to summarize the issues that have been brought up, and will ask the FSF legal dept. about them; I'm writing the text mostly

Re: RFC: proposed GPLv3 license exception draft

No, I think "minimally verbose" is intended to prevent, for example, that the configure script, in addition to its normal contents, Wow. I had no idea that the little phrase "minimally verbose" was intended to mean that. That does not jibe with any concept of "verbose" that I've ever c

Re: RFC: proposed GPLv3 license exception draft

Hi Karl, * Karl Berry wrote on Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 12:17:54AM CEST: > minimally verbose, non-debugging and non-tracing output > > I'm not sure whether "minimally verbose" means "not verbose at all" or > "only a low level of verbosity". I'm further confused because I > associate "verbose" w

Re: RFC: proposed GPLv3 license exception draft

* Russ Allbery wrote on Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 12:59:25AM CEST: > Hm, I think the point I'm still unclear on, given that language, is how > that accomplishes this: > > > It is supposed to be possible that configure scripts are covered under > > some other license. > > since nothing in the definitio

Re: RFC: proposed GPLv3 license exception draft

Ralf Wildenhues writes: > * Russ Allbery wrote on Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 03:21:43AM CEST: >> Is there something that defines "propagate" to include creation and >> distribution of derivative works? > > Yes, "propagate" is defined in the GPLv3 text in `0. Definitions.': > > To "propagate" a work

Re: RFC: proposed GPLv3 license exception draft

On Wed, 2009-04-22 at 23:30 +0200, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > > I guess you're saying here that the definition is not strict enough to > prevent abuses, right? Yes, of IANAL :). -Rob signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part __

Re: RFC: proposed GPLv3 license exception draft

Hello, * Robert Collins wrote on Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 02:41:31AM CEST: > > 2. No Weakening of Autoconf Copyleft. > > > > The availability of this Exception does not imply any general presumption > > that third-party software is unaffected by the copyleft requirements of > > the license of Autocon

Re: RFC: proposed GPLv3 license exception draft

* Russ Allbery wrote on Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 03:21:43AM CEST: > > You have permission to propagate output of Autoconf, even if such > > propagation would otherwise violate the terms of GPLv3. > > Is there something that defines "propagate" to include creation and > distribution of derivative works

Re: RFC: proposed GPLv3 license exception draft

Hi Ralf, On Tue, 2009-04-21 at 20:46 +0200, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > 0. Definitions > > "Covered Code" is any source code and/or object code of Autoconf that is a > covered work under this License. > > "Eligible Output Material" is Covered Code that is included in the > standard, minimally ver

Re: RFC: proposed GPLv3 license exception draft

On Tue, 2009-04-21 at 20:46 +0200, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > We hope that this new exception will help make Autoconf's licensing a > little more clear and robust -- if also a little more verbose -- in the > same way that GPLv3 has done for the entire free software community. We > are interested i

Re: RFC: proposed GPLv3 license exception draft

Ralf Wildenhues writes: > "Eligible Output Material" is Covered Code that is included in the > standard, minimally verbose, non-debugging and non-tracing output of > the version of Autoconf distributed to you under this License. > Moreover, "Eligible Output Material" may be comprised only of Cove

Re: RFC: proposed GPLv3 license exception draft

minimally verbose, non-debugging and non-tracing output I'm not sure whether "minimally verbose" means "not verbose at all" or "only a low level of verbosity". I'm further confused because I associate "verbose" with -v, but I didn't think affected the output, only the reporting to stdout/err

Re: RFC: proposed GPLv3 license exception draft

* Eric Blake wrote on Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 10:00:47PM CEST: > > Autotest output should be in the same category as configure scripts - > the intent is that a package can distribute and autotest-based > testsuite regardless of the package's license. I agree. > However, the above definition, by spe

Re: RFC: proposed GPLv3 license exception draft

Ralf Wildenhues gmx.de> writes: > We hope that this new exception will help make Autoconf's licensing a > little more clear and robust -- if also a little more verbose -- in the > same way that GPLv3 has done for the entire free software community. We > are interested in hearing feedback from Au

RFC: proposed GPLv3 license exception draft

[ cross-posted to several groups; please followup on the autoconf list ] In order to complete the GNU Project's migration to GPLv3, every GNU program that has exceptions to its license needs to have those exceptions updated for GPLv3. We've prepared draft text for an updated version of the Autoco