On Wed, 14 Apr 2010, Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
>> Is this intentional?
>
> No. Because the grant of licence DOES allow regrading, therefore what
> any particular version of the GPL says is irrelevant. The recipient CAN
> change the licence from GPL3 to GPL2 (or vice versa) because the *grant*
"Anthony W. Youngman" wrote in message
news:mp+abdfeudxlf...@thewolery.demon.co.uk...
In message <20100410130817.gq25...@anguilla.noreply.org>, Peter Palfrader
writes
So I cannot combine a work licensed under this license with a work
licensed under GPL3 + SSL exception because the latter doe
In message <20100410130817.gq25...@anguilla.noreply.org>, Peter
Palfrader writes
So I cannot combine a work licensed under this license with a work
licensed under GPL3 + SSL exception because the latter does not
allow downgrading to gpl2 (or upgrading to gpl3+).
I think you're wrong here. Bein
Dererk wrote:
> 3. You may use, modify, and redistributed the software under any
^
> version of the GPL greater than 3.
Typos are bad in any license text.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "un
On Thu, 08 Apr 2010, Dererk wrote:
> 1. You may use, modify, and redistribute the software under the
> terms of the GPL version 2 as distributed here:
> 2. You may use, modify, and redistribute the software under the
> terms of the GPL version 3, as found in the file COPYING and
>
Francesco Poli writes:
> ...and call it by a name other than "GPL"!
>
> I am under the impression that this is what Ben meant, but I'll wait
> for him to clarify.
Right. My point is that it's not helpful to say “modified versions of
the GPL” are allowed, since at that point the term “GPL” doesn'
On Fri, 09 Apr 2010 20:28:25 -0700 (PDT) Walter Landry wrote:
> Ben Finney wrote:
[...]
> > So I think it's misleading to refer to “modified versions of the GPL”,
> > since modified versions aren't the GPL any more. If you want to permit
> > an action in a license text, it would be best to be cle
Ben Finney wrote:
> Dererk writes:
>> 4. You may use, modify, and redistribute the software under a
>> modified version of the GPL version 3 (or, at your option, a
>> modified version of any higher-numbered version of the GPL)
>
> The GPL explicitly forbids modification of the licens
Thanks for bringing your questions here, and for paying attention to the
serious issue of licensing.
Dererk writes:
> I was asked to verify that the license below does meet DFSG, before
> releasing the software itself, so I would like you to take a look at
> this text and tell me what your opini
Quoting Dererk on 2010-04-08 19:05:39:
> I was asked to verify that the license below does meet DFSG, before
> releasing the software itself
Preemptive disclaimers: I am not a DD, ftpmaster, lawyer, or policy
hacker. In short, I'm simply talking from my corpulent posterior here.
I'm in agreement
Hi!
Dererk schrieb:
Altought IANAL, It appears to me that it meets the requirements,
but, as I mentioned, I would like your advice about it.
That's perfect. GPL with OpenSSl linking exception. You couldn't ask
for more :)
Best regards,
Alexander
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-l
Le Thu, Apr 08, 2010 at 09:05:39PM -0300, Dererk a écrit :
>
> I was asked to verify that the license below does meet DFSG,
> before releasing the software itself, so I would like you to take
> a look at this text and tell me what your opinions are, before
> getting rejected on the NEW queue :
Hello!
I was asked to verify that the license below does meet DFSG,
before releasing the software itself, so I would like you to take
a look at this text and tell me what your opinions are, before
getting rejected on the NEW queue :-)
Altought IANAL, It appears to me that it meets the require
13 matches
Mail list logo
