> For now you should treat Arch (tla) as GPL v2 only.
But then docs-tla/index.tst says version 2 or later. What should I make of that?
Cheers,
Debarshi
--
GPG key ID: 63D4A5A7
Key server: pgp.mit.edu
___
Gnu-arch-users mailing list
Gnu-arch-users@gnu
> I put in a "reasonable best effort" on such things under the
> circumstances, but it would have cost (more) real money to keep
> all of those things in perfect order.
>
> Collecting copyright assignments is trivial business, and doesn't
> require any effort at all. Infact
On Nov 16, 2007 2:11 PM, Alfred M. Szmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I put in a "reasonable best effort" on such things under the
> circumstances, but it would have cost (more) real money to keep all
> of those things in perfect order.
>
> Collecting copyright assignments is trivial busine
Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
Collecting copyright assignments is trivial business,
Unfortunately, it is not. The basic mechanics of it are trivial, sure:
collect autographs.The details matter a lot though.
Recall that it wouldn't have been simply the FSF office doing
this, the way they do for
It's only a real problem if you want to delegate decisions about
the terms of your license to the FSF. But I thought it was not
your intent to do so at that time.
One could have assigned the copyright to Tom.
___
Gnu-arch-users mailing list
G
I put in a "reasonable best effort" on such things under the
circumstances, but it would have cost (more) real money to keep all
of those things in perfect order.
Collecting copyright assignments is trivial business, and doesn't
require any effort at all. Infact, it is less effort than n
Thomas Lord writes:
> Sorry for the mess but, whatcha gonna do?
Is there a mess? Legally, it's perfectly clear that it's GPLv2-only.
The only legal problem is that if a file gets distributed separately
from the COPYING file, the recipient has no way of knowing her GPL
rights, except to ask the
Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
Then Tom needs a good spanking for obfuscating things for no peculiar
reson.
As much as I might enjoy that sort of thing (and don't we all, really)
I'm not so sure I agree.
I put in a "reasonable best effort" on such things under the circumstances,
but it would ha
> The COPYING file is a copy of the GNU GPL, it doesn't state what
> the license is of the whole package. You have to look at each
> file, and not at the actual license terms to see what the actual
> terms are of the package.
Each source file which has a license header asks the rea
For now you should treat Arch (tla) as GPL v2 only. The FSF is in the
process of getting copyright assignment from a copyright holder of some code
in Arch; once that is complete I have the permissions of all the copyright
holders and then the next release will switch to GPL v3 or later.
Thank you
Hi,
"Debarshi 'Rishi' Ray" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Each source file which has a license header asks the reader to refer
> to the src/COPYING file for the license terms of the package in this
> case.
You're right: these are "non-standard" headers, so we're stuck (i.e.,
your interpretation t
> The COPYING file is a copy of the GNU GPL, it doesn't state what the
> license is of the whole package. You have to look at each file, and
> not at the actual license terms to see what the actual terms are of
> the package.
Each source file which has a license header asks the reader to refer
to
Is GNU Arch (ie. tla-1.3.5) licensed under "GPL version 2 only" or
"GPL version 2 or (at your option) any later version" ? The Savannah
project page (http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/gnu-arch) mentions "GNU
General Public License v2 or later", while the src/COPYING file in the
1.3.5
Is GNU Arch (ie. tla-1.3.5) licensed under "GPL version 2 only" or
"GPL version 2 or (at your option) any later version" ? The Savannah
project page (http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/gnu-arch) mentions "GNU
General Public License v2 or later", while the src/COPYING file in the
1.3.5 release tarball
14 matches
Mail list logo
