On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 10:45:28PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 09:32:51PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> >> No, because it specifically says that it's at *my* option -- the
> >> recipients -- both in the grant "
On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 10:44:46PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> If someone at the FSF does claim officially that the first is possible,
> could you also ask how this is supposed to be done?
I intend to, though I don't want to throw too many questions at them
or get too far ahead of the dialog, for
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 09:32:51PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>> No, because it specifically says that it's at *my* option -- the
>> recipients -- both in the grant "GPL v2 or, at your option, any later
>> version" and in GPL 9.
>
> The question
On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 09:46:56PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> It seems there are two rough interpretations: that "v2 or later" is dual-
> licensing (or "dual, triple, etc-licensing"), and GPL#9 merely explains
> that, affirms it and recommends it; or that GPL#9 makes an explicit
> licensing requ
On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 09:32:51PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> No, because it specifically says that it's at *my* option -- the
> recipients -- both in the grant "GPL v2 or, at your option, any later
> version" and in GPL 9.
The question isn't what permissions you can use; it's which perm
> > But, frankly, the point about what the oopyright holder can do doesn't
> > really matter because there are significant programs (such as gcc)
> > where the copyright holder has specified "or any later version".
> >
> > And, that's what you have called "compulsions of asymmetric privileges".
On
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > I disagree -- section 9 gives you the option of replacing GPL v2 with
>> > later versions.
>
> On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 08:42:50PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>> Only in two very specific circumstances: if you received the work with
>> "or any lat
On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 04:14:57PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> FYI, the reply from the FSF I received was essentially that yes, you can
> make modifications to a "v2 or newer" GPL program and place them under a
> "v2 only" GPL and the result is compatible; that works exercising GPL#9
> is not int
> > The fact that it doesn't provide terms for any other cases, and another
> > part of the license says "You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or
> > distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License".
On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 06:10:46PM -0700, Adam McKenna wrote:
> Are you sa
On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 09:06:06PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 08:42:50PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> > Only in two very specific circumstances: if you received the work with
> > "or any later version," or if no version number was specified at all.
> >
> > What mak
> > I disagree -- section 9 gives you the option of replacing GPL v2 with
> > later versions.
On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 08:42:50PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Only in two very specific circumstances: if you received the work with
> "or any later version," or if no version number was specifi
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>> I find badly written perl approximately as hard to deal with as
>>> brainfuck. Do you believe that poor quality perl is non-free, or is the
>>> motive
On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 08:40:22PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Raul, nobody has claimed that the privileges which are available only
> to copyright holders make software non-free. I and others have
> claimed that compulsions of asymmetric privileges are non-free. The
> compulsions are wh
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 10:08:30PM +0100, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
>> Have you considered the consequences of your weird legal theory?
>>
>> Presumably the Linux kernel would be undistributable because it
>> contains both "GPL 2" and "GPL >=2" code.
>
Raul, nobody has claimed that the privileges which are available only
to copyright holders make software non-free. I and others have
claimed that compulsions of asymmetric privileges are non-free. The
compulsions are what make that non-free -- an existing situation of
asymmetry isn't necessarily
> Raul Miller wrote [in reply to Michael Poole]:
> > You seem to be claiming that the GPL implicitly allows the constraint
> > "no future versions of the GPL may be used" as if that constraint were
> > written into the license (see section 8 for an explicit example of this
> > kind of language).
O
Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> I find badly written perl approximately as hard to deal with as
>> brainfuck. Do you believe that poor quality perl is non-free, or is the
>> motive of the author important?
>
> I think it really dep
Raul Miller wrote [in reply to Michael Poole]:
You seem to be claiming that the GPL implicitly allows the constraint
"no future versions of the GPL may be used" as if that constraint were
written into the license (see section 8 for an explicit example of this
kind of language).
That is not a co
On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 10:08:30PM +0100, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
> Have you considered the consequences of your weird legal theory?
>
> Presumably the Linux kernel would be undistributable because it
> contains both "GPL 2" and "GPL >=2" code.
Not if "GPL 2" indicates that GPL v2 applies and
On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 05:58:40PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> I disagree that there are only two options. Section 9 provides two
> options, but does not expressly prohibit options of the form "This
> code is distributed under the General Public License, version 2."
I agree.
> Do you believe
On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 04:10:23PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> Two programs' licenses are incompatible if you can't combine them and
> distribute the result. If Raul's interpretation of the GPL is correct
> (the second alternative above), then a "GPL v2" program would be incompatible
> with a "G
> Raul Miller wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 02:19:23PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> >
> >>This excerpt is quite clear:
> >>
> >>A Program may specify GPL2 and "any later version" - check
> >>If the Program just says "GPL", the recipient may use any version - check
> >>
> >>If the Program sa
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > What rights from the GPL are being restricted by using a specific
> > version of it?
>
> The right to use other versions of the GPL.
Have you considered the consequences of your weird legal theory?
Presumably the Linux kernel would be undistributable because
Raul Miller wrote:
On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 02:19:23PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
This excerpt is quite clear:
A Program may specify GPL2 and "any later version" - check
If the Program just says "GPL", the recipient may use any version - check
If the Program says "GPL v2" alone, there's noth
On Wed, Aug 25, 2004 at 07:30:58PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> > > But GPL v2 explicitly allows other users to make this version choice
> > > themselves. So later users still have the option to use GPL v3, just
> > > like you did.
>
> On Wed, Aug 25, 2004 at 05:22:13PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen
Raul Miller writes:
> > > On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 02:42:25PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> > > > What rights from the GPL are being restricted by using a specific
> > > > version of it?
>
> > Raul Miller writes:
> > > The right to use other versions of the GPL.
>
> On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 03:35:
Dropped [EMAIL PROTECTED] from the CC ...
On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 10:13:58AM +0200, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> * Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [040826 00:47]:
> > It seems like an added restriction; "version 2" implies "no upgrades
> > allowed". It would allow a third party to prevent his modi
On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 04:58:52PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> > > On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 02:42:25PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> > > > What rights from the GPL are being restricted by using a specific
> > > > version of it?
>
> > Raul Miller writes:
> > > The right to use other versions of the
> >> so it does not prohibit specifying a particular GPL version to the
> >> exclusion of others.
> > False. Section 6 says:
On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 03:43:49PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Er, section 6 isn't the copyleft in the GPL. It's the "public
> license" part. It only grants rig
> > On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 02:42:25PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> > > What rights from the GPL are being restricted by using a specific
> > > version of it?
> Raul Miller writes:
> > The right to use other versions of the GPL.
On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 03:35:34PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> Pl
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> No. It means a user must have access to the source to have freedom.
>> C is often used as source. Obfuscated C is never used as source.
>> Write-only languages like Brainfuck are almost never sourc
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > I can see why you'd think that. However, that's not one of the terms
>> > offered by GPL v2. Perhaps there will be a GPL v3 which offers something
>> > analogous to "GPL v2 alone" as one of its terms.
>
> On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 11:32:58AM -0400, Mich
Raul Miller writes:
> On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 02:42:25PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> > What rights from the GPL are being restricted by using a specific
> > version of it?
>
> The right to use other versions of the GPL.
Please explain where that right comes from by citing unconditional
parts o
On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 02:42:25PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> What rights from the GPL are being restricted by using a specific
> version of it?
The right to use other versions of the GPL.
--
Raul
Raul Miller writes:
> > so it does not prohibit specifying a particular GPL version to the
> > exclusion of others.
>
> False. Section 6 says:
>
>Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the
>Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the
>orig
> > I can see why you'd think that. However, that's not one of the terms
> > offered by GPL v2. Perhaps there will be a GPL v3 which offers something
> > analogous to "GPL v2 alone" as one of its terms.
On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 11:32:58AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> Section 9 of the GPLv2 is qu
> > I can see why you'd think that. However, that's not one of the terms
> > offered by GPL v2. Perhaps there will be a GPL v3 which offers something
> > analogous to "GPL v2 alone" as one of its terms.
On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 11:43:14AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> What do you mean that
Raul Miller writes:
>On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 02:19:23PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>> This excerpt is quite clear:
>>
>> A Program may specify GPL2 and "any later version" - check
>> If the Program just says "GPL", the recipient may use any version - check
>>
>> If the Program says "GPL v2" alon
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 02:19:23PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>> This excerpt is quite clear:
>>
>> A Program may specify GPL2 and "any later version" - check
>> If the Program just says "GPL", the recipient may use any version - check
>>
>> If the Prog
On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 04:31:12PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> The problem arrive if you release a patch that sayd GPL v2 alone, against a
> program which is GPL v2 and later.
That's not a problem, because GPL v2 alone includes (via either option
in section 9) later versions.
"GPL v2 alone" exclu
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 10:41:50AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>> > Interesting point. Still it would cause problem to upstream to integrate
>> > your
>> > patch, because he cannot easily merge a GPL 2 only patch into a GPL 2 or
>> > later
>> > or
On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 10:41:50AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> GPL 9 is there so that I *can*
> release mine under "GPL v2 or later" and he can then integrate it into
> his, because there's explicit definition of what this means and how it
> works with the rest of the GPL.
That's one of t
Raul Miller writes:
> On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 02:19:23PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> > This excerpt is quite clear:
> >
> > A Program may specify GPL2 and "any later version" - check
> > If the Program just says "GPL", the recipient may use any version - check
> >
> > If the Program says "GPL
On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 02:19:23PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> This excerpt is quite clear:
>
> A Program may specify GPL2 and "any later version" - check
> If the Program just says "GPL", the recipient may use any version - check
>
> If the Program says "GPL v2" alone, there's nothing in S9 th
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 02:19:23PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>> Raul Miller writes:
>> >On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 09:59:30AM +0200, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
>> >> Which is GPL v2, nothing else.
>> >
>> >GPL v2 includes section 9.
>> >
>> >The terms in sect
On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 10:41:50AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> > Interesting point. Still it would cause problem to upstream to integrate
> > your
> > patch, because he cannot easily merge a GPL 2 only patch into a GPL 2 or
> > later
> > original work, since it would obviously force him
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 09:26:37AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > On Wed, Aug 25, 2004 at 04:40:34PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>> >> Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> >>
>> >> > O
On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 10:14:31AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Well, just wait, i will soon come here to debian-legal with the problem
> > sourunding miboot and its non-free boot sector pilfered from age old apple
> > floppies.
>
> Didn't that g
On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 09:26:37AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Wed, Aug 25, 2004 at 04:40:34PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> >> Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>
> >> > On Wed, Aug 25, 2004 at 09:29:43AM -0400, Brian Th
On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 02:19:23PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> Raul Miller writes:
> >On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 09:59:30AM +0200, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> >> Which is GPL v2, nothing else.
> >
> >GPL v2 includes section 9.
> >
> >The terms in section 9 do not offer distributors the option
> >of a
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 09:19:44AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> >> No, I believe some sourceless programs are inherently non-free. If
>> >> they're not practically modifiable, then they can't be free
On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 09:19:44AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> No, I believe some sourceless programs are inherently non-free. If
> >> they're not practically modifiable, then they can't be free software.
> >
> > Does this mean that a progra
Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> No. It means a user must have access to the source to have freedom.
> C is often used as source. Obfuscated C is never used as source.
> Write-only languages like Brainfuck are almost never source.
I find badly written perl approximately as hard
Raul Miller writes:
>On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 09:59:30AM +0200, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
>> Which is GPL v2, nothing else.
>
>GPL v2 includes section 9.
>
>The terms in section 9 do not offer distributors the option
>of avoiding future versions of the GPL.
>
>So either:
>
>[a] You are ignorant of the
On Thu, 2004-08-26 at 08:51 -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Your position on what's modifiable, and what's a preferred form of
> modification, is so far from the baselines of the project, or indeed
> the world, that you can only be characterized as extremist. In accord
> with your professed b
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Aug 25, 2004 at 04:40:34PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>> Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > On Wed, Aug 25, 2004 at 09:29:43AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>> >> > The FSF could release a GPL version 3 which has comple
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> No, I believe some sourceless programs are inherently non-free. If
>> they're not practically modifiable, then they can't be free software.
>
> Does this mean that a program written in C is only free if the user you give
> it to is fluent in C ? Or can g
> * Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [040826 01:32]:
> > You need to release your changes under the same terms you received the
> > Program, or you lose your rights to distribute the Program.
On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 09:59:30AM +0200, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> Which is GPL v2, nothing else.
GPL v2
Your position on what's modifiable, and what's a preferred form of
modification, is so far from the baselines of the project, or indeed
the world, that you can only be characterized as extremist. In accord
with your professed beliefs, please refrain from advocating such
beliefs until such time as
BRIT Consulting E Logistica LTDA
Marketing Division
Avenida Conselheiro Nebias
n 340, group 64 vila Mathias
Santos, Sao Paulo, Brazil
undergoing a pressure of six atmospheres yen tells us these readings were for some reason or other no days I simply moped on the beach and stared at the water
On Wed, Aug 25, 2004 at 04:40:34PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Wed, Aug 25, 2004 at 09:29:43AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> >> > The FSF could release a GPL version 3 which has completely arbitrary
> >> > terms. If control of the
* Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [040826 00:47]:
> It seems like an added restriction; "version 2" implies "no upgrades
> allowed". It would allow a third party to prevent his modifications
> from being used in the original work, if the original authors want to
> maintain "or any later version"
* Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [040826 01:32]:
> You need to release your changes under the same terms you received the
> Program, or you lose your rights to distribute the Program.
Which is GPL v2, nothing else. When I receive a program dual licenced
under GPL and BSD, I can choose which I wan
On Wed, Aug 25, 2004 at 05:30:03PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Wed, 2004-08-25 at 15:25 -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> >
> >> Sure we can. I might convince you that they're in the wrong place --
> >> and certainly debian-legal is
64 matches
Mail list logo
