Hello.
After some talk at the Hackfest about it, I'm writing the list to
officially request that glib and GTK be moved to LGPL "version 3 or
later".
The reasons for this are the increased clarity in the language of the
license plus the ability to accept LGPL3 code into glib/gtk ((since it
seems l
Hmm, and what will happen to applications using at least one GPLv2-only
libraries?
Regards,
Jean
Le samedi 15 mars 2008 à 21:03 +0100, ryan lortie a écrit :
> Hello.
>
> After some talk at the Hackfest about it, I'm writing the list to
> officially request that glib and GTK be moved to LGPL "ver
This topic was discussed recently on foundation-list.
http://mail.gnome.org/archives/foundation-list/2008-March/msg00032.html
In summary, attempting to relicence the library would be, in practise,
impossible.
No further benefit is gained by discussing this topic further.
AfC
Berlin
signature
Hi;
Am Samstag, den 15.03.2008, 21:16 +0100 schrieb Andrew Cowie:
> This topic was discussed recently on foundation-list.
>
> http://mail.gnome.org/archives/foundation-list/2008-March/msg00032.html
>
> In summary, attempting to relicence the library would be, in practise,
> impossible.
Your lin
Hi Jean;
Am Samstag, den 15.03.2008, 21:09 +0100 schrieb Jean Bréfort:
> Hmm, and what will happen to applications using at least one GPLv2-only
> libraries?
This might indeed pose a problem, though I'm not sure how major it is. I
have to admit that it is however not a theoretical problem, since
On Sat, 15 Mar 2008, Andrew Cowie wrote:
> This topic was discussed recently on foundation-list.
>
> http://mail.gnome.org/archives/foundation-list/2008-March/msg00032.html
>
> In summary, attempting to relicence the library would be, in practise,
> impossible.
>
> No further benefit is gained by
On Sat, 2008-03-15 at 21:48 +0100, Tim Janik wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Mar 2008, Andrew Cowie wrote:
>
> > This topic was discussed recently on foundation-list.
> >
> > http://mail.gnome.org/archives/foundation-list/2008-March/msg00032.html
> >
> > In summary, attempting to relicence the library would b
Behdad Esfahbod wrote:
> My take on it is that it's breaking our interface. I'd fine if we tell
> the world that we are going to do the switch in three years from now and
> stick to it, but changing tomorrow is like changing stable API tomorrow.
> Just deprecate the old license now, remove it in 3
On Sat, Mar 15, 2008 at 5:56 PM, Behdad Esfahbod <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> My take on it is that it's breaking our interface. I'd fine if we tell
> the world that we are going to do the switch in three years from now and
> stick to it, but changing tomorrow is like changing stable API tom
Le samedi 15 mars 2008 à 21:43 +0100, Christian Persch a écrit :
> Hi Jean;
>
> Am Samstag, den 15.03.2008, 21:09 +0100 schrieb Jean Bréfort:
> > Hmm, and what will happen to applications using at least one GPLv2-only
> > libraries?
>
> This might indeed pose a problem, though I'm not sure how m
On Sat, 2008-03-15 at 21:48 +0100, Tim Janik wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Mar 2008, Andrew Cowie wrote:
>
> > This topic was discussed recently on foundation-list.
> >
> > http://mail.gnome.org/archives/foundation-list/2008-March/msg00032.html
> >
> > In summary, attempting to relicence the library would
On Sun, 16 Mar 2008, Bastien Nocera wrote:
> On Sat, 2008-03-15 at 21:48 +0100, Tim Janik wrote:
>> Our headers currently state:
>> * This library is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
>> * modify it under the terms of the GNU Lesser General Public
>> * License as published by th
Am Sonntag, den 16.03.2008, 07:49 +0100 schrieb Jean Bréfort:
> Le samedi 15 mars 2008 à 21:43 +0100, Christian Persch a écrit :
> > Hi Jean;
> >
> > Am Samstag, den 15.03.2008, 21:09 +0100 schrieb Jean Bréfort:
> > > Hmm, and what will happen to applications using at least one GPLv2-only
> > > l
Am Samstag, den 15.03.2008, 21:48 +0100 schrieb Tim Janik:
> On Sat, 15 Mar 2008, Andrew Cowie wrote:
>
> > This topic was discussed recently on foundation-list.
> >
> > http://mail.gnome.org/archives/foundation-list/2008-March/msg00032.html
> >
> > In summary, attempting to relicence the library
Mathias Hasselmann wrote:
> Am Sonntag, den 16.03.2008, 07:49 +0100 schrieb Jean Bréfort:
>
>> Le samedi 15 mars 2008 à 21:43 +0100, Christian Persch a écrit :
>>
>>> Hi Jean;
>>>
>>> Am Samstag, den 15.03.2008, 21:09 +0100 schrieb Jean Bréfort:
>>>
Hmm, and what will happen to
On Sat, 2008-03-15 at 21:43 +0100, Christian Persch wrote:
> Am Samstag, den 15.03.2008, 21:09 +0100 schrieb Jean Bréfort:
> > Hmm, and what will happen to applications using at least one GPLv2-only
> > libraries?
>
> This might indeed pose a problem, though I'm not sure how major it is. I
> have
Am Montag, den 17.03.2008, 00:31 +0100 schrieb Mathias Hasselmann:
> I am really wondering what's the reason for FSF claiming, that
> programs
> licenced GPL-2 only are not allowed to use LGPL-3 libraries. The LGPL-3
> allows non-free, proprietary programs to use LGPL-3 libraries, but
> excludes f
On Sat, 2008-03-15 at 21:03 +0100, ext ryan lortie wrote:
> Hello.
>
> After some talk at the Hackfest about it, I'm writing the list to
> officially request that glib and GTK be moved to LGPL "version 3 or
> later".
IANAL and all, but here are a few points for consideration based on my
experienc
Hi Tommi,
Am Dienstag, den 18.03.2008, 11:56 +0200 schrieb Tommi Komulainen:
> On Sat, 2008-03-15 at 21:03 +0100, ext ryan lortie wrote:
> > After some talk at the Hackfest about it, I'm writing the list to
> > officially request that glib and GTK be moved to LGPL "version 3 or
> > later".
>
> IA
Does that really apply for the code you link to? Afaik, if a GPL
program uses an LGPL library, it doesn't relicense that library under
GPL too, it merely links to it, and leaves it up to the user to make
sure the library is available. If this would be the case, than it
wouldn't be possible for GPL
Ok, according to the matrix on
http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#AllCompatibility
it's indeed not allowed, although I don't really understand why.
On 3/18/08, Lieven van der Heide <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Does that really apply for the code you link to? Afaik, if a GPL
> pr
Windows API (and may be DirectX) is a special case, because you can't
write a Windows program without using it.
Le mardi 18 mars 2008 à 12:57 +0100, Lieven van der Heide a écrit :
> Ok, according to the matrix on
>
> http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#AllCompatibility
>
> it's in
Hi all,
Having studied the FSF licenses and their restrictions, I think
it would be reasonable to re-license GTK+ under the LGPLv3
(or later) + GPLv2 linking exception (or, alternatively, simply
multi-license it under LGPLv3 / GPLv2).
This method allows people to link GTK+ with any of the follow
> If this would be the case, than it
> wouldn't be possible for GPL code to use something like the Windows
> API or DirectX either.
And don't forget proprietary Unixes with proprietary C libraries. That
was after all the expected runtime for the original GPL programs (like
Emacs, gcc, bison, et
Quoting GPL 2:
»However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not
include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or
binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of
the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component
Lieven van der Heide wrote:
> Ok, according to the matrix on
>
> http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#AllCompatibility
>
> it's indeed not allowed, although I don't really understand why.
Mathias pointed out exactly why. It's not that linking GPLv2-only to
LGPLv3 violates the LGP
Alexander Shaduri wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Having studied the FSF licenses and their restrictions, I think
> it would be reasonable to re-license GTK+ under the LGPLv3
> (or later) + GPLv2 linking exception (or, alternatively, simply
> multi-license it under LGPLv3 / GPLv2).
Hmm, there's a nifty idea
Alexander Shaduri wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Having studied the FSF licenses and their restrictions, I think
> it would be reasonable to re-license GTK+ under the LGPLv3
> (or later) + GPLv2 linking exception (or, alternatively, simply
> multi-license it under LGPLv3 / GPLv2).
>
But you can't do that
Yevgen Muntyan wrote:
> Alexander Shaduri wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Having studied the FSF licenses and their restrictions, I think
>> it would be reasonable to re-license GTK+ under the LGPLv3
>> (or later) + GPLv2 linking exception (or, alternatively, simply
>> multi-license it under LGPLv3 / GPLv2
Yevgen Muntyan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Gtk is *LGPL*-2, so you can't make it GPL-2 (unless you
> convince all contributors, including aliens and dead).
It appears that you have not read LGPLv2. Clause 3 explicitly
says that "You may opt to apply the terms of the ordinary GNU
General Public
Brian J. Tarricone wrote:
> Yevgen Muntyan wrote:
>
>> Alexander Shaduri wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> Having studied the FSF licenses and their restrictions, I think
>>> it would be reasonable to re-license GTK+ under the LGPLv3
>>> (or later) + GPLv2 linking exception (or, alternatively,
On Tue, 2008-03-18 at 16:03 -0700, Brian J. Tarricone wrote:
> "You may opt to apply the terms of the ordinary GNU General Public
> License instead of this License to a given copy of the Library. [...]
> (If a newer version than version 2 of the ordinary GNU General Public
> License has appeare
Hubert Figuiere wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-03-18 at 16:03 -0700, Brian J. Tarricone wrote:
>> "You may opt to apply the terms of the ordinary GNU General Public
>> License instead of this License to a given copy of the Library. [...]
>> (If a newer version than version 2 of the ordinary GNU General Pu
Hubert Figuiere wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-03-18 at 16:03 -0700, Brian J. Tarricone wrote:
>
>> "You may opt to apply the terms of the ordinary GNU General Public
>> License instead of this License to a given copy of the Library. [...]
>> (If a newer version than version 2 of the ordinary GNU Gener
Tommi Komulainen wrote:
> IANAL and all, but here are a few points for consideration based on my
> experience after being exposed to Nokia legal machinery.
>
> 1. Changing the wording from "version 2 or later" to "version 3 or
> later" will remove the "2 or later" option. To my underst
Jean Bréfort wrote:
> Windows API (and may be DirectX) is a special case, because you can't
> write a Windows program without using it.
>
It's not a special case. There is certainly no reference to the Windows
API in the GPL or the LGPL.
The only license that matters when it comes to deciding
2008/3/19, Mark Mielke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> Jean Bréfort wrote:
I can't see this thread going anywhere close to a conclusion, at this point
we should stop discussing about the hundreds of possible interpretations of
the licenses. Probably none of the people that has participated is a
lawyer
On Mon, 2008-03-17 at 14:16 +0400, Alexander Shaduri wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Having studied the FSF licenses and their restrictions, I think
> it would be reasonable to re-license GTK+ under the LGPLv3
> (or later) + GPLv2 linking exception (or, alternatively, simply
> multi-license it under LGPLv3 /
On Tue, Mar 18, 2008 at 8:46 PM, Mark Mielke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jean Bréfort wrote:
> > Windows API (and may be DirectX) is a special case, because you can't
> > write a Windows program without using it.
> >
>
> It's not a special case. There is certainly no reference to the Windows
>
Dominic Lachowicz wrote:
On Tue, Mar 18, 2008 at 8:46 PM, Mark Mielke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Jean Bréfort wrote:
> Windows API (and may be DirectX) is a special case, because you can't
> write a Windows program without using it.
>
It's not a special case. There is certainly no refere
Mark Mielke wrote:
> If I choose to download Oracle, and connect a GPL product to Oracle
> *without redistribution*, there is nothing the FSF can do to stop me.
They actually don't. GPL applies only if you distribute modified or
unmodified result. At home (or within your company if you are an
e
Mark Mielke wrote:
> If I choose to download Oracle, and connect a GPL product to Oracle
> *without redistribution*, there is nothing the FSF can do to stop me.
I should qualify - I went down a path I thought Dominic was leading but
away from the Gtk topic. The above is grey in terms of whether
Paul Pogonyshev wrote:
Mark Mielke wrote:
If I choose to download Oracle, and connect a GPL product to Oracle
*without redistribution*, there is nothing the FSF can do to stop me.
They actually don't. GPL applies only if you distribute modified or
unmodified result. At home (or withi
> This is open to interpretation - but the exact wording of the license does
> not necessarily match the legal rights a person has in terms of copyright
> law, and the ability for a copyright to limit the use of the product. In my
> opinion, the "special exception" is not part of the license, but
(cc'ing Luis)
Le mercredi 19 mars 2008, à 02:14 +, Alberto Ruiz a écrit :
> But for this kind of issues, I suggest to ask for help to the foundation for
> legal advisory here, licenses are not that much about personal
> interpretation, but effective transposition into each countries' laws and
On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 1:09 PM, Vincent Untz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> (cc'ing Luis)
>
> Le mercredi 19 mars 2008, à 02:14 +, Alberto Ruiz a écrit :
> > But for this kind of issues, I suggest to ask for help to the foundation
> for
> > legal advisory here, licenses are not that much abo
46 matches
Mail list logo
