Le lundi 05 juillet 2010, à 21:58 -0400, Ryan Lortie a écrit :
hi Vincent,
On Mon, 2010-07-05 at 17:18 +0200, Vincent Untz wrote:
It's worth thinking really hard before moving to LGPLv3 (at least; not
sure about GPLv3): LGPLv3 is incompatible with GPLv2, according to the
FSF; that's a
hi Vincent,
On Tue, 2010-07-06 at 09:26 +0200, Vincent Untz wrote:
Do you feel okay with the idea of allowing proprietary apps to use our
platform but not GPLv2 apps?
In short, yes.
Anybody who has an application that is GPLv2-only and has accepted
enough contributions that it has become an
Hi!
hi Vincent,
On Tue, 2010-07-06 at 09:26 +0200, Vincent Untz wrote:
Do you feel okay with the idea of allowing proprietary apps to use our
platform but not GPLv2 apps?
In short, yes.
Anybody who has an application that is GPLv2-only and has accepted
enough contributions that it has
On Tue, 2010-07-06 at 13:12 +, j...@jsschmid.de wrote:
Well, while I guess all my modules are LGPL/GPLv2+ would that still
prevent me from linking against LGPLv3 things if I don't convert them to
GPLv3?
No.
At the point that your application is used with a LGPLv3 library then it
would
Le mardi 06 juillet 2010, à 09:26 -0400, Ryan Lortie a écrit :
On Tue, 2010-07-06 at 13:12 +, j...@jsschmid.de wrote:
Well, while I guess all my modules are LGPL/GPLv2+ would that still
prevent me from linking against LGPLv3 things if I don't convert them to
GPLv3?
No.
At the
Hey Ryan,
On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 9:00 AM, Ryan Lortie de...@desrt.ca wrote:
hi Vincent,
On Tue, 2010-07-06 at 09:26 +0200, Vincent Untz wrote:
Do you feel okay with the idea of allowing proprietary apps to use our
platform but not GPLv2 apps?
In short, yes.
Anybody who has an application
Hi,
Le mardi 06 juillet 2010, à 09:00 -0400, Ryan Lortie a écrit :
hi Vincent,
On Tue, 2010-07-06 at 09:26 +0200, Vincent Untz wrote:
Do you feel okay with the idea of allowing proprietary apps to use our
platform but not GPLv2 apps?
In short, yes.
Anybody who has an application
Hi!
At the point that your application is used with a LGPLv3 library then it
would conceptually be 'upgraded' to GPLv3 at that time (so that the
GPLv2 clause preventing linking with LGPLv3 disappears). This doesn't
mean that you have to change the licence of existing code -- you just
keep
On Tue, 06 Jul 2010 09:00:09 -0400 Ryan Lortie wrote:
On Tue, 2010-07-06 at 09:26 +0200, Vincent Untz wrote:
Do you feel okay with the idea of allowing proprietary apps to use
our platform but not GPLv2 apps?
In short, yes.
Anybody who has an application that is GPLv2-only and has
On 07/06/2010 03:00 PM, Ryan Lortie wrote:
hi Vincent,
On Tue, 2010-07-06 at 09:26 +0200, Vincent Untz wrote:
Do you feel okay with the idea of allowing proprietary apps to use our
platform but not GPLv2 apps?
In short, yes.
Can't the platform libraries of gnome be considered as a
Le mardi 06 juillet 2010 à 13:49 +, j...@jsschmid.de a écrit :
Hi!
At the point that your application is used with a LGPLv3 library then it
would conceptually be 'upgraded' to GPLv3 at that time (so that the
GPLv2 clause preventing linking with LGPLv3 disappears). This doesn't
mean
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
On 06/07/10 15:12, j...@jsschmid.de wrote:
Hi!
hi Vincent,
On Tue, 2010-07-06 at 09:26 +0200, Vincent Untz wrote:
Do you feel okay with the idea of allowing proprietary apps to use our
platform but not GPLv2 apps?
In short, yes.
On Tue, 06 Jul 2010 16:01:54 +0200
Steve Frécinaux nudr...@gmail.com wrote:
On 07/06/2010 03:00 PM, Ryan Lortie wrote:
hi Vincent,
On Tue, 2010-07-06 at 09:26 +0200, Vincent Untz wrote:
Do you feel okay with the idea of allowing proprietary apps to use our
platform but not GPLv2 apps?
On Tue, 2010-07-06 at 09:34 -0400, William Jon McCann wrote:
On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 9:00 AM, Ryan Lortie de...@desrt.ca wrote:
Anybody who has an application that is GPLv2-only and has accepted
enough contributions that it has become an unreasonable proposition to
relicense has made a
hi Ted,
On Tue, 2010-07-06 at 12:12 -0500, Ted Gould wrote:
IANAL but I'm
curious if a standard exception couldn't be drafted for LGPLv3 to
allow linking with GPLv2 programs. Perhaps with work, that could be
GNOME policy going
On 06/07/10 18:17, Ryan Lortie wrote:
hi Ted,
On Tue, 2010-07-06 at 12:12 -0500, Ted Gould wrote:
IANAL but I'm
curious if a standard exception couldn't be drafted for LGPLv3 to
allow linking with GPLv2 programs. Perhaps with work,
On Tue, 2010-07-06 at 13:17 -0400, Ryan Lortie wrote:
On Tue, 2010-07-06 at 12:12 -0500, Ted Gould wrote:
IANAL but I'm
curious if a standard exception couldn't be drafted for LGPLv3 to
allow linking with GPLv2 programs. Perhaps
El mar, 06-07-2010 a las 12:32 -0500, Ted Gould escribió:
On Tue, 2010-07-06 at 13:17 -0400, Ryan Lortie wrote:
It's the GPLv2 in the program code that states you can't link this
against anything other than GPLv2 code.
Nothing we could add to the library licence (other than
18 matches
Mail list logo
