Hello everybody,
I am a happy Debian user ever since Potato, and I am the author and
therefore potentially upstream of Nuitka, a Python compiler project of
mine. I am also aiming to become the Debian Maintainer for it.
I have created a package for Nuitka and it has technically evolved to
Paul Wise p...@debian.org
On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 12:53 AM, MJ Ray wrote:
Is the headline that, in a fit of Not Invented Hear and licence
proliferation, Mozilla is planning to phase out the GPL/LGPL
tri-licensing?
Please redirect your complaints somewhere they may have an affect, to
Kay Hayen kayha...@gmx.de
// This code is in part copyright Kay Hayen, license GPLv3. This has the
consequence that
// your must either obtain a commercial license or also publish your
original source code
// under the same license unless you don't distribute this source or its
binary.
I
Hello MJ,
Am 05.01.2012 12:41, schrieb MJ Ray:
// This code is in part copyright Kay Hayen, license GPLv3. This has the
consequence that
// your must either obtain a commercial license or also publish your
original source code
// under the same license unless you don't distribute this source
You are not a member of ISP-Equipment.com, and do not have permission to post
listings. Posting is available for the low cost of $99 per year, which allows
10 postings every day. Browse to http://isp-equipment.com for more information.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
Kay Hayen kayha...@gmx.de writes:
First my intent: I believe intent matters in copyright. Please do not
discuss if my intent is good or bad, or if my approach will be
effective or not for a project.
Please don't attempt to set rules forbidding discussion of your intent
and approach. If it's
Hello Ben,
you wrote:
Am 05.01.2012 13:39, schrieb Ben Finney:
Kay Hayenkayha...@gmx.de writes:
First my intent: I believe intent matters in copyright. Please do not
discuss if my intent is good or bad, or if my approach will be
effective or not for a project.
Please don't attempt to set
On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 9:37 AM, Kay Hayen kayha...@gmx.de wrote:
Hello Tanguy,
Although you are free to sell this program according to the terms of
the GPLv3, I would not like that, and this is why I chose this
license, that should make most attempts of doing so non-viable.
Hello Christofer,
The interesting part is contribution copyright assignment. I actually do
_not_ want Nuitka to have to stay GPLv3 when it's ready. Then I
_definitely_ want it to have another license, with ASF2.0 being the
current front runner.
I'm not a fan of copyright assignment, and
Christofer C. Bell, 2012-01-05 17:18+0100:
Would it be possible to have, instead, a contributor agreement that
allows contributors to retain copyright while at the same time
granting you a non-transferable, non-revokable, exclusive right to
relicense their contribution under the ASF2.0 license
On Thu, 5 Jan 2012 10:18:27 -0600 Christofer C. Bell wrote:
On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 9:37 AM, Kay Hayen kayha...@gmx.de wrote:
[...]
The interesting part is contribution copyright assignment. I actually do
_not_ want Nuitka to have to stay GPLv3 when it's ready. Then I
_definitely_ want it
Hello Tanguy,
Am 05.01.2012 18:08, schrieb Tanguy Ortolo:
Christofer C. Bell, 2012-01-05 17:18+0100:
Would it be possible to have, instead, a contributor agreement that
allows contributors to retain copyright while at the same time
granting you a non-transferable, non-revokable, exclusive
Hello Francesco,
[...]
Would it be possible to have, instead, a contributor agreement that
allows contributors to retain copyright while at the same time
granting you a non-transferable, non-revokable, exclusive right to
relicense their contribution under the ASF2.0 license at a time of
your
Am 05.01.2012 19:53, schrieb Kay Hayen:
And it should address what MJ said, because that way, new code is under
ASF2.0 for everybody pretty automatic. That way, my only unfairness
is to not put my work under GPLv3, a right that I offer everybody else
too though.
Sorry for this typo: I meant
Kay Hayen, 2012-01-05 19:53+0100:
I would make it say something like this:
# If you (not Kay Hayen) submit patches
So far, this is a contributor agreement.
# or make the software
# available to licensors of this software in either form,
But here you are starting to add on the
Hi all,
I need some opinions about torque's license change.
Earlier versions of torque (=2.4) are shipped under the original PBS
License (e.g. torque-2.4.16/PBS_License.txt).
But now there is a license change in upstreams new torque packages (=2.5)
and I am not sure how to handle this new
Kay Hayen kayha...@gmx.de writes:
And it should address what MJ said, because that way, new code is
under ASF2.0 for everybody pretty automatic.
Is that your intent? If so, I don't know why the license is not ASF 2.0
from the start.
On the other hand, if you want everyone to receive the work
Dominique Belhachemi domi...@debian.org writes:
But now there is a license change in upstreams new torque packages (=2.5)
and I am not sure how to handle this new situation.
Thank you for taking the situation seriously and seeking advice.
They added a new license
Hello Ben,
you wrote:
And it should address what MJ said, because that way, new code is
under ASF2.0 for everybody pretty automatic.
Is that your intent? If so, I don't know why the license is not ASF 2.0
from the start.
I gave my motivation in the original email. In short I don't want
Hello Tanguy,
thanks for breaking it down:
# If you (not Kay Hayen) submit patches
So far, this is a contributor agreement.
# or make the software
# available to licensors of this software in either form,
But here you are starting to add on the license, taking high risks
of
By “ASF 2.0” I assume you mean “the Apache license version 2.0”. I will
use “Apache 2.0” which I gather is the more widely used name for that
license.
Kay Hayen kayha...@gmx.de writes:
It is supposed to work like this: Everybody receives Nuitka from me
under GPLv3. And ASF2.0 for nothing. Then
On Wed, 04 Jan 2012 06:07:46 +0800 Paul Wise wrote:
Hi all,
Mozilla has released the Mozilla Public License version 2.0:
http://lwn.net/Articles/474070/
http://blog.lizardwrangler.com/2012/01/03/mozilla-public-license-version-2-0-released/
https://www.mozilla.org/MPL/2.0/
Hi Paul,
Hello Ben,
thanks for your reply, you wrote:
By “ASF 2.0” I assume you mean “the Apache license version 2.0”. I will
use “Apache 2.0” which I gather is the more widely used name for that
license.
I will do so too then.
Kay Hayenkayha...@gmx.de writes:
It is supposed to work like this:
On Thu, 5 Jan 2012 23:58:55 +0100 Francesco Poli wrote:
Here's my own personal analysis of the license text.
[...]
Mozilla Public License Version 2.0
==
[...]
1.5. Incompatible With Secondary Licenses
means
(a) that the initial Contributor has
Kay Hayen kayha...@gmx.de writes:
I want everybody to receive under GPLv3 and then to contribute back by
default under GPLv3 and Apache license 2.0, or optionally under GPLv3
only.
At whose option?
Since you're asking for opinions: I would reject the first option. If
you want to receive
25 matches
Mail list logo
