On Tue, Aug 09, 2016 at 09:04:35PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> Outside of the "derivative work" GPL clause they don't quite look
> compatible to me as a non-lawyer (eg the definition of "source code"
> looks to differ on scripts etc).
The clause that permits derived works to be licensed under the
On Tue, Aug 09, 2016 at 09:04:35PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> Outside of the "derivative work" GPL clause they don't quite look
> compatible to me as a non-lawyer (eg the definition of "source code"
> looks to differ on scripts etc).
The clause that permits derived works to be licensed under the
>>>> claims accusing the licensed work of infringement (see 10b)
>>>> o There is a cure period for licensees who are not compliant
>>>> with the license (there is no cure opportunity in GPLv2)
>>>> o copyleft-next has a 'built-in or-later' provision
>>
licensed work of infringement (see 10b)
>>>> o There is a cure period for licensees who are not compliant
>>>> with the license (there is no cure opportunity in GPLv2)
>>>> o copyleft-next has a 'built-in or-later' provision
>>>>
>>>> [0] ht
On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 11:27 AM, Ted Ts'o wrote:
> I wonder why you're cc'ing the linux-kernel mailing list?
I agree with Ted, discussion of copyleft-next is entirely off-topic
for LKML. I expect to set up a mailing list soon for copyleft-next.
Regards,
Richard
--
To unsubscribe from this
On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 11:27 AM, Ted Ts'o ty...@mit.edu wrote:
I wonder why you're cc'ing the linux-kernel mailing list?
I agree with Ted, discussion of copyleft-next is entirely off-topic
for LKML. I expect to set up a mailing list soon for copyleft-next.
Regards,
Richard
--
To unsubscribe
6 matches
Mail list logo