Hello List,
On Wed, Aug 30, 2006 at 04:16:00PM +0200, Andreas Schneider wrote:
> To get a module in the repository it needs to be at least under the New
> BSD License. Dual license with GPLv2 would be appreciated.
The license discussion on #cmake got me wondering:
cmake itself is 4-clause BSD li
On Wed, 2006-08-30 at 17:32 +0200, Joerg Mayer wrote:
> Hello List,
>
> On Wed, Aug 30, 2006 at 04:16:00PM +0200, Andreas Schneider wrote:
> > To get a module in the repository it needs to be at least under the New
> > BSD License. Dual license with GPLv2 would be appreciated.
>
> The license dis
Joerg Mayer wrote:
Hello List,
On Wed, Aug 30, 2006 at 04:16:00PM +0200, Andreas Schneider wrote:
To get a module in the repository it needs to be at least under the New
BSD License. Dual license with GPLv2 would be appreciated.
The license discussion on #cmake got me w
Joerg Mayer wrote:
> cmake itself is 4-clause BSD license (including the advertising clause)
> which is incompatible with GPLv2.
The CMake license should be free enough to allow you to copy and modify
the code and redistribute it under any license you choose as long as the
original notice appears.
Von: Brad King <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Joerg Mayer wrote:
> > cmake itself is 4-clause BSD license (including the advertising clause)
> > which is incompatible with GPLv2.
>
> The CMake license should be free enough to allow you to copy and modify
> the code and redistribute it under any license y
Von: "Brandon J. Van Every" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Joerg Mayer wrote:
> > Hello List,
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 30, 2006 at 04:16:00PM +0200, Andreas Schneider wrote:
> >
> >> To get a module in the repository it needs to be at least under the New
> >> BSD License. Dual license with GPLv2 would be ap
On Wed, 2006-08-30 at 16:11 -0400, Brad King wrote:
> Joerg Mayer wrote:
> > cmake itself is 4-clause BSD license (including the advertising clause)
> > which is incompatible with GPLv2.
>
> The CMake license should be free enough to allow you to copy and modify
> the code and redistribute it unde
On Wed, 2006-08-30 at 10:48 -0700, Brandon J. Van Every wrote:
> Joerg Mayer wrote:
> > Hello List,
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 30, 2006 at 04:16:00PM +0200, Andreas Schneider wrote:
> >
> > > To get a module in the repository it needs to be at least under the New
> > > BSD License. Dual license with
Hello List,
thanks for the many replies and the information/correction.
Instead of answering all mails individually, I'll just try to write
a collective answer on all the points that seem either important or
interesting enough to write on.
1)
First and foremost: Yes, it seems I mixed up the lice
Jamie Jones wrote:
It is rather clear that you don't like the GPL, that's fine - but
ultimately the module authors decide what to license their work as.
Really, you are making a mountain out of a molehill.
Not really. The point about what commercial people are willing to use,
has gone in
On Thu, 2006-08-31 at 00:54 -0700, Brandon J. Van Every wrote:
> Jamie Jones wrote:
> >
> > It is rather clear that you don't like the GPL, that's fine - but
> > ultimately the module authors decide what to license their work as.
> > Really, you are making a mountain out of a molehill.
> >
>
>
Jamie Jones wrote:
I do see your point, but [...]
Do you believe that having GPL build scripts requires you to distribute
the source to the application ? If so you are quite mistaken. You only
need to distribute the source to the build scripts.
Most commercial vendors aren't interested in a
On Thu, 2006-08-31 at 03:55 -0700, Brandon J. Van Every wrote:
> Jamie Jones wrote:
> >
> > I do see your point, but [...]
>
> > Do you believe that having GPL build scripts requires you to distribute
> > the source to the application ? If so you are quite mistaken. You only
> > need to distribute
I would like to create some sort of process for getting modules in to
CMake releases. At that point, the modules should conform to the CMake
BSD license. I don't want inconsistent licenses in the CMake release
tree.
However, licensing aside, there needs to be some sort of process for
gettin
Brandon J. Van Every wrote:
> Jamie Jones wrote:
>>
>> I do see your point, but [...]
>
>> Do you believe that having GPL build scripts requires you to distribute
>> the source to the application ? If so you are quite mistaken. You only
>> need to distribute the source to the build scripts.
>
> Mos
Andreas 'GlaDiaC' Schneider wrote:
I can't see your point. What is the problem if a modules is licensed under
the New BSD License AND GPL or just under New BSD License. You can modify
the module and redistribute it only under the New BSD License.
The word "GPL" means "legal risk" to ma
>Yes a GPL'd app can use a Cmake build system. The cdrecord issue is more
>about how one person is out of touch with the rest of the world on what
>the GPL says. Pay no attention to that person.
This is bull. Paying no attention to what Joerg says is a mistake.
You might disagree with the focus o
On Thu, 2006-08-31 at 21:55 +0100, James Mansion wrote:
> >Yes a GPL'd app can use a Cmake build system. The cdrecord issue is more
> >about how one person is out of touch with the rest of the world on what
> >the GPL says. Pay no attention to that person.
>
> This is bull. Paying no attention to
18 matches
Mail list logo
