Trevor Daniels wrote:
> For example, we seem to have lost Joseph's really
> promising work to document contemporary music.
Not lost. :-) Actually, the delay came at least in part because I was
looking through problems of functionality related to my docs. I'll post
about this on -user.
Graham Percival wrote Sunday, September 20, 2009 8:26 PM
I was confused because Joseph keeps on talking about wanting to
copy "code" from the documentation, and Trevor Daniels recently
said "you know what? you guys are nutters. Do whatever you want
with my stuff, now shut up and do work".
..
Graham Percival wrote:
> For this reason, I categorically refuse to have file-specific
> ownership. Documentation is documentation; any doc committers
> will be listed in the same place.
About docs, I completely agree. I didn't have to spend long in the git
logs to realise that it just wasn't fe
On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 06:23:06PM +0200, Joseph Wakeling wrote:
> Graham Percival wrote:
> >>> This is fixed on the new website.
> >> But not on the current one, which is still live ... :-)
> >
> > Patches accepted.
>
> I'll see what I can do. (Depending on the timeline for launch of the
> new
On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 09:19:35PM +0200, John Mandereau wrote:
> Le samedi 19 septembre 2009 à 18:34 +0100, Graham Percival a écrit :
> > I'd rather not keep track of individual licenses in the source
> > tree. Since he's stated that his work is in public domain,
> > there'd be no problems with
Similarly, the validity of "This work is released by me, the author,
into the public domain" in the US is under debate, because US law
allows authors to retain the right to redact licenses to their
copyright works. There is an argument that the moment you put
something in the PD, you lose the redac
On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 11:28:11PM +0100, Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
> >The snippets are taken from the LSR and a condition of submission to the
> >LSR is that you consign your work to the public domain (and that you
> >have the right to do so). I know, because I submitted a couple of
> >snippets
On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 07:45:46PM +0100, Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
> In message <1253377160.11679.1824.ca...@localhost>, John Mandereau
> writes
>> On the opposite, note that snippets from LSR are public domain, not FDL.
>
> Aarrgghh.
>
> The snippets are [insert incorrect information her
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Am Samstag, 19. September 2009 20:45:46 schrieb Anthony W. Youngman:
> In message <1253377160.11679.1824.ca...@localhost>, John Mandereau
> >On the opposite, note that snippets from LSR are public domain, not FDL.
>
> Aarrgghh.
>
> The snippets are not
On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 12:28 AM, Anthony W. Youngman
wrote:
> (I don't know, but there's been a fair bit of discussion, on and off, on
> debian legal as to whether it is even *possible* for some people to consign
> their work to the public domain - the *law* apparently says they *can't*)
Hence t
In message <4ab53f73.1080...@webdrake.net>, Joseph Wakeling
writes
Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
Aarrgghh.
The snippets are not public domain, unless the author put them there.
The *music* may be public domain, but the *arrangement* is copyright
whoever wrote the lilypond code (unless you make th
Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
> Aarrgghh.
>
> The snippets are not public domain, unless the author put them there.
> The *music* may be public domain, but the *arrangement* is copyright
> whoever wrote the lilypond code (unless you make the argument that the
> snippet is too small to qualify for cop
Le samedi 19 septembre 2009 à 18:34 +0100, Graham Percival a écrit :
> I'd rather not keep track of individual licenses in the source
> tree. Since he's stated that his work is in public domain,
> there'd be no problems with people extracting it for any CC stuff.
> ... err wait, are we talking ab
Le samedi 19 septembre 2009 à 19:45 +0100, Anthony W. Youngman a
écrit :
> The snippets are not public domain, unless the author put them there.
> The *music* may be public domain, but the *arrangement* is copyright
> whoever wrote the lilypond code (unless you make the argument that the
> snip
In message <1253377160.11679.1824.ca...@localhost>, John Mandereau
writes
Le samedi 19 septembre 2009 à 07:30 +0100, Graham Percival a écrit :
But we *don't* have "a licensing situation" on a file-by-file
basis. Everything[1] under Documentation/ is FDL; everything
else[2] is GPLv2.
[1] it w
In message <4ab5056a.9010...@webdrake.net>, Joseph Wakeling
writes
[1] Where the licensing issue might be important is this: what if
someone forks Lilypond and adds a bunch of their own code with a
different but compatible license statement -- like GPLv2+? It helps
clarify the situation if each
On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 06:19:20PM +0200, John Mandereau wrote:
> Le samedi 19 septembre 2009 à 07:30 +0100, Graham Percival a écrit :
> > But we *don't* have "a licensing situation" on a file-by-file
> > basis. Everything[1] under Documentation/ is FDL; everything
> > else[2] is GPLv2.
>
> Wha
Graham Percival wrote:
> Bugger the GNU project guidelines. They're not the be-all and
> end-all of good project mangement. In many ways, they're pure
> rubbish. Toodle-pip, cheers, and all that.
>
> (I'm trying to be more British... I was really surprised at the
> use of "cheers" here. It's a
Le samedi 19 septembre 2009 à 07:30 +0100, Graham Percival a écrit :
> But we *don't* have "a licensing situation" on a file-by-file
> basis. Everything[1] under Documentation/ is FDL; everything
> else[2] is GPLv2.
>
> [1] it would be very useful if somebody could create an example to
> replac
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 01:03:05AM +0200, Joseph Wakeling wrote:
> Graham Percival wrote:
> > The manuals include the FDL, so I'd argue that it's clear that the
> > sources are under the same license. I'd argue the same about the
> > source files, actually.
>
> This is basically about good (unamb
Joseph Wakeling wrote Thursday, September 10, 2009 2:10 PM
What would be good is if as many contributors as possible can
reply to
this email just to OK (i) my putting copyright/licensing notices
in the
files they have contributed to and (ii) their licensing
preferences for
their contribution
In message <1252655677.8830.236.ca...@heerbeest>, Jan Nieuwenhuizen
writes
Op donderdag 10-09-2009 om 23:47 uur [tijdzone +0100], schreef Graham
Percival:
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 04:37:46PM -0600, Carl Sorensen wrote:
>
> On 9/10/09 4:02 PM, "Graham Percival" wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Sep 09, 2009
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 11:14:39AM +0200, Joseph Wakeling wrote:
> It leads to the question -- already in mind from browsing the git log --
> who is 'fred'?
Please get into the habit of searching -devel before asking such
questions. The answer is on the top 10 results for "fred" on a
lilypond-dev
2009/9/11 Reinhold Kainhofer :
> So "git shortlog" or "git shortlog -s" should now give less contributors and a
> better overview.
Please add
Francisco Vila
Francisco Vila
so that Paco Vila gets redirected to me (that is the purpose of the
file as I understand it)
Other issues could arise
2009/9/11 Reinhold Kainhofer :
> FWIW, I've now added a .mailcap file, so names like "wl" or "Andrew Hawyluk"
> or
> "Carl Sorensen" should now be combined with the correct names "Werner
> Lemberg", "Andrew Hawryluk" and "Carl D. Sorensen".
>
> So "git shortlog" or "git shortlog -s" should now giv
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Am Freitag, 11. September 2009 11:14:39 schrieb Joseph Wakeling:
> Francisco Vila wrote:
> > 2009/9/11 Francisco Vila :
> >> Those stats are very old now.
> >
> > They are now up to date, just in case.
> >
> > http://paconet.org/lilypond-statistics/
>
Le jeudi 10 septembre 2009 à 00:24 +0200, Joseph Wakeling a écrit :
> But anyway, I'm willing to do the typing side of it. I just need you to
> clarify exactly what I should put: presumably GPLv2 for code files and
> GFDLv1.1 for docs are the base licenses, but would you and Jan approve
> putting
Francisco Vila wrote:
> 2009/9/11 Francisco Vila :
>> Those stats are very old now.
>
> They are now up to date, just in case.
>
> http://paconet.org/lilypond-statistics/
Thanks very much for this! :-)
It leads to the question -- already in mind from browsing the git log --
who is 'fred'? Ther
Carl Sorensen wrote:
> Amen to that. If only they had made some kind of an accomodation clause
> that would have allowed projects with mixed v2 and v3 licenses to go
> forward, as long as the v3 license terms were followed on the combined
> package (e.g. no tivoization, and following the patent st
Op donderdag 10-09-2009 om 23:47 uur [tijdzone +0100], schreef Graham
Percival:
> On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 04:37:46PM -0600, Carl Sorensen wrote:
> >
> > On 9/10/09 4:02 PM, "Graham Percival" wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, Sep 09, 2009 at 06:04:17PM +0200, Joseph Wakeling wrote:
> Yes, but then the FS
Graham Percival wrote:
> The beginnings of the manuals. In my restructuring, that's now in
> macros.itexi, although this may well move to a third macro file.
> Hmm, I just noticed that the copyright years are messed up... I'll
> fix that fairly soon.
Brilliant. So as far as the docs are concerne
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 01:05:35AM +0200, Joseph Wakeling wrote:
> Graham Percival wrote:
> > Docs have always been FDLv1.1 or later. I was thinking about
> > unilaterially changing them to FDLv1.3 or later, as soon as I've
> > got GUB working.
>
> Great, that should simplify matters A LOT. Wher
2009/9/11 Francisco Vila :
> Those stats are very old now.
They are now up to date, just in case.
http://paconet.org/lilypond-statistics/
A pity that the .mailmap file is of no effect here.
--
Francisco Vila. Badajoz (Spain)
www.paconet.org
www.csmbadajoz.com
_
I came up with a .mailmap file for our project that might be of help
on identifying unique contributors from git log even if they have
multiple email addresses. I think it is not appropriate to show it
pubic[ahem] publicly; I'll send you it if you want.
Main contributors are graphically visible
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 12:47 AM, Graham Percival
wrote:
> wrapper code under v2/v3 to expose the pubic interface or whatever
> it is that people who do this kind of stuff do. I don't have that
> kind of a hobby. :)
What's that for a hobby? "Exposing the pubic interface"? Sounds a bit
hairy to
On Thu, 10 Sep 2009, Graham Percival wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 09, 2009 at 03:36:39PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > (There are a significant number of files distributed in lilypond which
> > are under v2 or later, or v3 or later, as well as things like
> > input/mutopia/claop.py, which isn't even Free
Graham Percival wrote:
> Docs have always been FDLv1.1 or later. I was thinking about
> unilaterially changing them to FDLv1.3 or later, as soon as I've
> got GUB working.
Great, that should simplify matters A LOT. Where in the source tree is
the explicit statement of the 'or later' ... ?
Graham Percival wrote:
> Mao, I missed the flamewar. I'm very disappointed that this
> happened without me. :(
:-)
> The manuals include the FDL, so I'd argue that it's clear that the
> sources are under the same license. I'd argue the same about the
> source files, actually.
This is basicall
On 9/10/09 4:47 PM, "Graham Percival" wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 04:37:46PM -0600, Carl Sorensen wrote:
>>
>> On 9/10/09 4:02 PM, "Graham Percival" wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Sep 09, 2009 at 06:04:17PM +0200, Joseph Wakeling wrote:
>>>
>>> 3) If we can't find some people, or if they don'
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 04:37:46PM -0600, Carl Sorensen wrote:
>
> On 9/10/09 4:02 PM, "Graham Percival" wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Sep 09, 2009 at 06:04:17PM +0200, Joseph Wakeling wrote:
> >
> > 3) If we can't find some people, or if they don't agree to
> > whatever relicense/assignment, then we e
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 11:07:06PM +0100, Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
> In message <200909101742.10364.reinh...@kainhofer.com>, Reinhold
> Kainhofer writes
>> ... So we'll have the same problem again in some years... By then it will be
>> even harder tracking down all contributors, who submitted
On 9/10/09 4:02 PM, "Graham Percival" wrote:
> Mao, I missed the flamewar. I'm very disappointed that this
> happened without me. :(
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 09, 2009 at 06:04:17PM +0200, Joseph Wakeling wrote:
>
> 3) If we can't find some people, or if they don't agree to
> whatever relicense/
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 11:07:06PM +0100, Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
> In message <200909101742.10364.reinh...@kainhofer.com>, Reinhold
> Kainhofer writes
>> ... So we'll have the same problem again in some years... By then it will be
>> even harder tracking down all contributors, who submitted
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 7:02 PM, Graham Percival
wrote:
> Mao, I missed the flamewar. I'm very disappointed that this
> happened without me. :(
The reason that I am against changing anything beyond making existing
terms clearer is that it generates a huge amount of legal
hypothesizing by non-la
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 03:10:53PM +0200, Joseph Wakeling wrote:
> > (There are a significant number of files distributed in lilypond which
> > are under v2 or later, or v3 or later, as well as things like
> > input/mutopia/claop.py, which isn't even Free Software, as it cannot
> > be modified.[2])
On Wed, Sep 09, 2009 at 03:36:39PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> (There are a significant number of files distributed in lilypond which
> are under v2 or later, or v3 or later, as well as things like
> input/mutopia/claop.py, which isn't even Free Software, as it cannot
> be modified.[2])
I'm not
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 12:36:08AM +0200, Joseph Wakeling wrote:
> Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
> > I think having to sign paperwork (esp. having your employer sign
> > something) is something that puts a big barrier up for potential
> > contributors. I am not sure it is worth the effort.
>
> I would
In message <200909101742.10364.reinh...@kainhofer.com>, Reinhold
Kainhofer writes
Am Donnerstag, 10. September 2009 17:12:42 schrieb Anthony W. Youngman:
In message <4aa8fadd.5050...@webdrake.net>, Joseph Wakeling
writes
>Now, future policies -- I would suggest new contributions be requested
Mao, I missed the flamewar. I'm very disappointed that this
happened without me. :(
On Wed, Sep 09, 2009 at 06:04:17PM +0200, Joseph Wakeling wrote:
>(3) Individual code files contain copyright notices but not licensing
>notices. It's not clear if these notices have been maintained
On Thu, 10 Sep 2009, Joseph Wakeling wrote:
> Don Armstrong wrote:
> > (There are a significant number of files distributed in lilypond
> > which are under v2 or later, or v3 or later, as well as things
> > like input/mutopia/claop.py, which isn't even Free Software, as it
> > cannot be modified.[2
Travis Briggs wrote:
> The source material could be public domain, but the snippet itself is
> a 'derivative work' and is thus under the copyright of whoever made
> it.
What I recall from submitting to LSR was that I was asked to agree that
by submitting this snippet, I was (a) consigning it to th
Reinhold Kainhofer wrote:
> Because they are not allowed by copyright law. They cannot change the license
> if the file is only "mostly" their work. They can only change the license if
> the file is SOLELY their work.
Well, technically they can release their bit of the file under their own
licen
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Am Donnerstag, 10. September 2009 17:12:42 schrieb Anthony W. Youngman:
> In message <4aa8fadd.5050...@webdrake.net>, Joseph Wakeling
> writes
>
> >Now, future policies -- I would suggest new contributions be requested
> >to follow these rules:
> >
>
In message <4aa8fadd.5050...@webdrake.net>, Joseph Wakeling
writes
Now, future policies -- I would suggest new contributions be requested
to follow these rules:
-- for code, GPLv2 or later or a more liberal compatible license;
NO NO NO.
Some people are likely to be unhappy with "or later"
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Am Donnerstag, 10. September 2009 16:21:34 schrieb Jan Nieuwenhuizen:
> Op donderdag 10-09-2009 om 15:28 uur [tijdzone +0200], schreef Valentin
>
> Villenave:
> > On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 3:10 PM, Joseph Wakeling
> >
> > wrote:
> > > What would be good
Op donderdag 10-09-2009 om 15:28 uur [tijdzone +0200], schreef Valentin
Villenave:
> On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 3:10 PM, Joseph Wakeling
> wrote:
> > What would be good is if as many contributors as possible can reply to
> > this email just to OK (i) my putting copyright/licensing notices in the
> >
The source material could be public domain, but the snippet itself is
a 'derivative work' and is thus under the copyright of whoever made
it.
-Travis
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 9:28 AM, Valentin Villenave
wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 3:10 PM, Joseph Wakeling
> wrote:
>> What I propose is that
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 3:10 PM, Joseph Wakeling
wrote:
> What I propose is that I maintain a separate branch of the code (but
> keep pulling/rebasing against the Lilypond master) to insert appropriate
> copyright and licensing notices. git blame should help to give a better
> idea of who has con
Anyways, as a contributor (!), I definitely support "or later" because
it allows for things like the Wikipedia re-licensing. It would have
been quite a mess if Wikipedia wasn't under an "or later" clause.
I'll volunteer to add GPLv2 text to the top of all the files. Just let
me know when you want
On 10 Sep 2009, at 14:46, Joseph Wakeling wrote:
In GNU projects, the normal thing is that contributors sign a paper
which is sent in to GNU that they donate the code to GNU.
Nope.
"For a program to be GNU software does not require transferring
copyright to the FSF; that is a separate que
Don Armstrong wrote:
> This is now my problem,[1] so I'll attempt to get it addressed at some
> point in the future. [I'd certainly like to see Lilypond at least
> clear up some of the issues so that the above can become correct.]
Hmm, I noted you were listed as the Debian maintainer on Launchpad'
Hans Aberg wrote:
> In GNU projects, the normal thing is that contributors sign a paper
> which is sent in to GNU that they donate the code to GNU.
Nope.
"For a program to be GNU software does not require transferring
copyright to the FSF; that is a separate question. If you transfer
the
On 10 Sep 2009, at 11:20, Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
You can't simply go around and change licenses, unless you are the
copyright
holder!
But you are the copyright owner of the LilyPond code.
Copyright belongs to the person who wrote the code (sometimes).
Unless explicitly signed over to
In message , Hans Aberg
writes
You can't simply go around and change licenses, unless you are the
copyright
holder!
But you are the copyright owner of the LilyPond code.
Copyright belongs to the person who wrote the code (sometimes). There is
no ONE owner of lilypond - it is spread amongst
On 10 Sep 2009, at 09:42, Reinhold Kainhofer wrote:
Am Donnerstag, 10. September 2009 09:30:57 schrieb Hans Aberg:
I'm not a lawyer, but if I came across "v2 or latest" wording, my
advice would be to treat it as "v2 only" because to do anything else
IS TOO DANGEROUS. So your wording is self-def
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Am Donnerstag, 10. September 2009 09:30:57 schrieb Hans Aberg:
> > I'm not a lawyer, but if I came across "v2 or latest" wording, my
> > advice would be to treat it as "v2 only" because to do anything else
> > IS TOO DANGEROUS. So your wording is self-
On 10 Sep 2009, at 08:35, Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
"Or later" will admit later restrictions, "or latest" will impose
them quietly on old sources.
BINGO!
And this is EXACTLY the problem with your suggestion. You are
RETROACTIVELY CHANGING THE LICENCE!
As has been pointed out elsewhere,
In message <4aa828d1.5000...@webdrake.net>, Joseph Wakeling
writes
Reinhold Kainhofer wrote:
... which I'm sure will NOT hold up in court, so I propose we really
end this
discussion. Please leave the lawyering to the lawyers and lets go back to
coding.
Please understand the motivation for OP
In message <3ccb7043-cf70-480b-84d1-27332fda9...@math.su.se>, Hans Aberg
writes
I don't see much point in continuing this discussion further because I
don't think you understand what the real problems (or solutions)
are, or
what the requirements of the GPL (in any version) are.
The point is
> "Joseph" == Joseph Wakeling writes:
Joseph> More particularly, does anyone object to me adding a GFDL 1.1
Joseph> or later notice to the doc files I have written?
Yes. It may then be undistributable by Debian --- see
http://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_001
Peter C
--
Dr Peter Chubb
On 9/9/09 4:24 PM, "Joseph Wakeling" wrote:
> Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
>> Jan and I know that the current situation wrt copyright headers and
>> license notes is not ideal, but we never could bring ourselves to fix
>> it, because there always were more important things to do.
>> Nevertheless, i
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 7:48 PM, Reinhold
Kainhofer wrote:
> However, I don't want to sign my contributions over to the FSF, since I want
> my contributions to help Lilypond in whatever ways might be needed, even
> commercial or proprietary. I don't want them as "weapons" in the hand of the
> FSF (i
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Am Donnerstag, 10. September 2009 00:24:35 schrieb Joseph Wakeling:
> Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
> > Jan and I know that the current situation wrt copyright headers and
> > license notes is not ideal, but we never could bring ourselves to fix
> > it, beca
On Wed, 09 Sep 2009, Joseph Wakeling wrote:
> (6) Confusion has come from
>
> (i) a Debian copyright file for the package, apparently last
> updated in 2004, stating that Lilypond is 'v2 or later'
This is now my problem,[1] so I'll attempt to get it addressed at some
point in the future.
Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
> I think having to sign paperwork (esp. having your employer sign
> something) is something that puts a big barrier up for potential
> contributors. I am not sure it is worth the effort.
I would not want to see users in general having to sign a contributor
agreement or an
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 7:24 PM, Joseph
Wakeling wrote:
> Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
>> Jan and I know that the current situation wrt copyright headers and
>> license notes is not ideal, but we never could bring ourselves to fix
>> it, because there always were more important things to do.
>> Neverthel
Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
> Jan and I know that the current situation wrt copyright headers and
> license notes is not ideal, but we never could bring ourselves to fix
> it, because there always were more important things to do.
> Nevertheless, if someone feels energetic to take this on, they have my
Reinhold Kainhofer wrote:
> ... which I'm sure will NOT hold up in court, so I propose we really end this
> discussion. Please leave the lawyering to the lawyers and lets go back to
> coding.
Please understand the motivation for OPENING this discussion -- not to
debate which license or what lice
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 5:21 PM, Joseph
Wakeling wrote:
> The other part is that there are some aspects of the way Lilypond code
> and docs are managed with respect to licensing that are confusing or
> problematic -- lack of licensing notices in source code, lack of
> copyright or licensing notices
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Am Mittwoch, 9. September 2009 23:30:19 schrieb Hans Aberg:
> The point is that if you want to be up-to-date with latest GPL in both
> new restrictions and permissions, the only way to do it is to refer to
> the latest version when the source is publis
Hans Aberg wrote:
> The point is that if you want to be up-to-date with latest GPL in both
> new restrictions and permissions, the only way to do it is to refer to
> the latest version when the source is published. "Or later" will admit
> later restrictions, "or latest" will impose them quietly on
On 9 Sep 2009, at 23:14, Joseph Wakeling wrote:
As long as you use "or later", tivoization and other new
restriction in v3 is allowed.
No, as long as you use _GPLv2_, whether it's GPLv2 or later or GPLv2
and
only GPLv2, tivoization is possible. 'GPLv3 or later' would not allow
tivoization
Hans Aberg wrote:
> As long as you use "or later", tivoization and other new restriction in v3 is
> allowed.
No, as long as you use _GPLv2_, whether it's GPLv2 or later or GPLv2 and
only GPLv2, tivoization is possible. 'GPLv3 or later' would not allow
tivoization.
> It is probably simplest to j
On 9 Sep 2009, at 22:37, Joseph Wakeling wrote:
You might check with the GNUers if it is the intention. It means that
sources can be tivoized, even in the face of the new v3.
It's GPLv2, and not the 'or later', that allows for tivoization ...
Right. Do you want v2 to applicable by a re-distr
Hans Aberg wrote:
> You might check with the GNUers if it is the intention. It means that
> sources can be tivoized, even in the face of the new v3.
It's GPLv2, and not the 'or later', that allows for tivoization -- but
you have to question whether this is a serious risk for Lilypond.
> Linking i
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Am Mittwoch, 9. September 2009 20:53:21 schrieb Hans Aberg:
> On 9 Sep 2009, at 20:30, Joseph Wakeling wrote:
> > The whole point of this formulation is to give users of the program
> > the
> > option to choose which version of the license they want to
Matthias Kilian wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 09, 2009 at 06:04:17PM +0200, Joseph Wakeling wrote:
>> So, having read the past discussion and looked through source code etc.
>> it seems like there are several general observations, some conclusions,
>> and some questions.
>>
>> Observations:
>>
>>(1) Lil
On Wed, Sep 09, 2009 at 06:04:17PM +0200, Joseph Wakeling wrote:
> So, having read the past discussion and looked through source code etc.
> it seems like there are several general observations, some conclusions,
> and some questions.
>
> Observations:
>
>(1) Lilypond isn't violating any copy
On 9 Sep 2009, at 20:30, Joseph Wakeling wrote:
I think that the formulation should be "GPL, v2 or latest", because
otherwise those that want to redistribute the code can choose which
version, which is not the intent - v3 is in fact more restrictive
with
respect to tivoization. Only one GPL s
Hans Aberg wrote:
> I think that the formulation should be "GPL, v2 or latest", because
> otherwise those that want to redistribute the code can choose which
> version, which is not the intent - v3 is in fact more restrictive with
> respect to tivoization. Only one GPL should be applicable. The
> f
On 9 Sep 2009, at 18:04, Joseph Wakeling wrote:
In addressing this there are several policies that can be put in
place NOW:
(1) All new files added to the code or docs must contain an
unambiguous copyright AND licensing notice: I suggest in this
case GPLv2 or later for code, and
So, having read the past discussion and looked through source code etc.
it seems like there are several general observations, some conclusions,
and some questions.
Observations:
(1) Lilypond isn't violating any copyright/license requirements.
There's no LEGAL pressure to switch to GPLv3
92 matches
Mail list logo
