Hi Josh;
I believe the discussion of if/when to migrate is a valid one. I think
questions of licenses which are not GPL v2 or v3 compatible are obviously
out for reasons beyond those which you describe. Most notably the
translations are still owned by others so our work as a whole is *required*
Guys,
This whole discussion is pointless. We got the code under the GPL; our
only choice to change licenses is GPLv3.
Since we're incrementally replacing Dieter's code, we can't ever
relicense it.
--Josh
-
This SF.net em
On 8/21/07, Joshua D. Drake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Chris Travers wrote:
> > Hi John and others,
> >
> > My major reason for suggesting that a change to the BSDL would not be
> good
> > is because I think that consistant licensing is good f
Hi all;
I am starting to think that this is probably going to require some legal
advice. As long as there are no objections, I would like to hire a lawyer
to get some specific feedback we can further discuss.
On 8/21/07, John Locke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Chris Travers wrote:
> >
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Chris Travers wrote:
> Hi John and others,
>
> My major reason for suggesting that a change to the BSDL would not be good
> is because I think that consistant licensing is good for the community and
> therefore we should try to keep the license as muc
Hi John and others,
My major reason for suggesting that a change to the BSDL would not be good
is because I think that consistant licensing is good for the community and
therefore we should try to keep the license as much as possible under the
same spirit as possible under the GPL v2 or later circ
Decibel! wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 18, 2007 at 11:26:34AM -0700, John Locke wrote:
>
>> As a commercial company, I prefer releasing code under the GPL instead
>> of the LGPL (or the Apache or the BSD licenses, etc), simply because it
>> prevents competitors from taking my code, extending it, and
>>
Hi,
Chris Travers wrote:
>
> One of the problems that we run into is that our internal data
> structures are defined in the db, and it is unlikely that any other
> applications using our stored procedure interfaces might well be
> considered to be derivatives of our work. This might include:
>
>
