On Wednesday 13 June 2007 15:11, Krzysztof Halasa wrote:
> > The GPLv2 however is very clear how the end user gets the license: from
> > the original author.
>
> I'd be surprised if it's for GPL to decide.
If you choose the GPL as license, the text of the GPL are the conditions.
Otherwise, the GP
Hi!
> > So, does it mean we can change the license of the dead people's code ?
> >
>
> Please realize that one doesn't need to be dead to become
> uncommunicative incapacitated or vanish. The only need to be somewhere
> other than where they were without updating anyone.
>
> Here is a very hum
Bernd Paysan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I want to add my two cents on what I think the legal status of the
> individual contributions to Linux are. The thing in question is not the
> GPLv2 itself (which is pretty clear that code without explicit statements
> is under "any",
That's not exact
On Wednesday 13 June 2007 06:53, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> You mean all the misunderstandings? ;-)
My impression as well is that there are many misunderstandings, even
concerning the status of Linux itself. Linus is much better at kernel
hacking than at license issues, and that's true for most ot
El Tue, Jun 12, 2007 at 08:45:46AM -0700 Linus Torvalds ha dit:
>
>
> On Tue, 12 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> >
> > Per this reasoning, Sun wouldn't be waiting for GPLv3, and it would
> > have already released the OpenSolaris kernel under GPLv2, would it
> > not? ;-)
>
> Umm. You are mak
* Linus Torvalds:
> I consider dual-licensing unlikely (and technically quite hard), but at
> least _possible_ in theory. I have yet to see any actual *reasons* for
> licensing under the GPLv3, though. All I've heard are shrill voices about
> "tivoization" (which I expressly think is ok)
In a
On Jun 12, 2007, Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> (see previous long thread about v3 and why the kernel developers
> hate it, it all still applys to the final draft.)
You mean all the misunderstandings? ;-)
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Bo
On Jun 12, 2007, Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>>
>> Per this reasoning, Sun wouldn't be waiting for GPLv3, and it would
>> have already released the OpenSolaris kernel under GPLv2, would it
>> not? ;-)
> Umm. You are making the fundament
On Tue, Jun 12, 2007 at 11:37:11PM +0530, debian developer wrote:
> On 6/10/07, Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Sun, Jun 10, 2007 at 04:25:55PM +0530, debian developer wrote:
> > > On 6/10/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > On Sun, 10 Jun 2007, Tarkan Erimer wrote:
On 6/10/07, Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sun, Jun 10, 2007 at 04:25:55PM +0530, debian developer wrote:
> On 6/10/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Sun, 10 Jun 2007, Tarkan Erimer wrote:
> >
> > >> > And maybe another questions should be : How long a copyright own
On Tue, 12 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>
> Per this reasoning, Sun wouldn't be waiting for GPLv3, and it would
> have already released the OpenSolaris kernel under GPLv2, would it
> not? ;-)
Umm. You are making the fundamental mistake of thinking that Sun is in
this to actually further so
On Jun 11, 2007, Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And that's i guess what OpenSolaris lacks and which i suspect it is
> mostly interested in: lots of nice Linux drivers ;-) XFS, the
> largest Linux filesystem is 100K lines of code - and ZFS (i've never
> seen it) is very likely smaller tha
Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Tarkan Erimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
(*) And I've been pushing for that since before they even released
it - I walked out on Bill Joy at a private event where they
discussed their horrible previous Java license.
Thanks for making things more clear :-) Some re
On Mon, Jun 11, 2007 at 11:03:48AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Tarkan Erimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > (*) And I've been pushing for that since before they even released
> > > it - I walked out on Bill Joy at a private event where they
> > > discussed their horrible previous Java l
On Sun, 2007-06-10 at 11:49 +0300, Tarkan Erimer wrote:
>
> So, does it mean we can change the license of the dead people's code ?
>
Please realize that one doesn't need to be dead to become
uncommunicative incapacitated or vanish. The only need to be somewhere
other than where they were withou
> Now yes, they didn't consult with the individual owners of the kernel,
> who might hold different views as to if v2 covers keys like you have
> stated in the past, but the FSF's position in this area does hold some
> ammount of weight, especially in court if it were to come to that.
The authors
* Tarkan Erimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > (*) And I've been pushing for that since before they even released
> > it - I walked out on Bill Joy at a private event where they
> > discussed their horrible previous Java license.
>
> Thanks for making things more clear :-) Some really strong i
Ingo Molnar wrote:
You might as well have said "the moon is made out of cheese" and i'd not
have quoted it either. Why? Because it's irrelevant to the fundamental
point that was raised and which you keep ignoring: that the only
"example" you cited is a hypothetical that is currently false. In a
* Tarkan Erimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >* Tarkan Erimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>[...] Just, I asked simple question and included a simple example in
> >>it. [...]
> >>
> >
> >actually, what you said was this:
> >
> >" I hope we should upgrade to GP
Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Sun, 10 Jun 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote:
I have yet to see any actual *reasons* for licensing under the GPLv3,
though.
Btw, if Sun really _is_ going to release OpenSolaris under GPLv3, that
_may_ be a good reason. I don't think the GPLv3 is as good a license as
Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Tarkan Erimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...] Just, I asked simple question and included a simple example in
it. [...]
actually, what you said was this:
" I hope we should upgrade to GPLv3 and Sun should "Dual License"
the OpenSolaris via GPLv3 (or at least,GP
* Tarkan Erimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [...] Just, I asked simple question and included a simple example in
> it. [...]
actually, what you said was this:
" I hope we should upgrade to GPLv3 and Sun should "Dual License"
the OpenSolaris via GPLv3 (or at least,GPLv3 should be CDDL
comp
Ingo Molnar wrote:
if you want to change the minds of the OpenSolaris community, i'd
proffer that it's perhaps more efficient to talk to them, not to the
linux-kernel mailing list. Thanks,
Ingo
I do not want to and try to change anyone's mind: nor the Open Solaris
Community nor t
* Tarkan Erimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >> I hope we should upgrade to GPLv3 and Sun should "Dual License"
> > > >> the OpenSolaris via GPLv3 (or at least,GPLv3 should be CDDL
> > > >> compatible.).
> > > >
> > > > The OpenSolaris community has already stated that they do not
> > > >
Al Viro wrote:
Perhaps. However, since the only thing in hands of your kind of advocates
is best not mentioned on a family-friendly maillist, may I suggest taking
that exciting thread to more appropriate place?
I don't think that this thread is going unfriendly or harmfully.
However, what is
On Mon, Jun 11, 2007 at 09:46:18AM +0300, Tarkan Erimer wrote:
> Greg KH wrote:
> >On Sun, Jun 10, 2007 at 05:21:53PM +0300, Tarkan Erimer wrote:
> >
> >> I hope we should upgrade to GPLv3 and Sun should "Dual License" the
> >> OpenSolaris via GPLv3 (or at least,GPLv3 should be CDDL compatible.).
debian developer wrote:
On 6/10/07, Tarkan Erimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
debian developer wrote:
> On 6/10/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Sun, 10 Jun 2007, Tarkan Erimer wrote:
>>
>> >> > And maybe another questions should be : How long a copyright
>> owner can
>> >>
Greg KH wrote:
On Sun, Jun 10, 2007 at 05:21:53PM +0300, Tarkan Erimer wrote:
I hope we should upgrade to GPLv3 and Sun should "Dual License" the
OpenSolaris via GPLv3 (or at least,GPLv3 should be CDDL compatible.).
The OpenSolaris community has already stated that they do not want t
Tarkan Erimer wrote:
> And maybe another questions should be : How long a copyright owner can
> hold the copyright, if died or lost for sometime ? if died, the
> copyright still should be valid or not ? If lost, what the law orders at
> this point for copyright holding ?
In most countries, copyrig
On Sun, Jun 10, 2007 at 09:54:58PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> > > GPLv2 probably forbids Tivoisation anyway. Which is good IMHO even if not
> >
> >
> > Now that is a bit waving in the air. GPLv2 forbids Tivoisation
> > theoretically but practically it didnt stop them doing it
Jesper Juhl wrote:
One thing that would make that easier in the future is if contributers
at least started to dual-license their submissions. I.e. if instead
of "GPL version 2", one could say "GPL version 2 or GPL version 3".
It isn't the same thing as the problematic "GPL version 2 or later",
b
On Mon, Jun 11, 2007 at 12:52:41AM +0530, debian developer wrote:
> I don't think that upgrading to GPLv3 just for the sake of tools
> present in some other software should be the reason. We are capable
> enough of developing our own tools, and many experienced people are
> working on equivalent(e
On 10/06/07, James Bruce <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Linus Torvalds wrote:
[ snip ]
> I consider dual-licensing unlikely (and technically quite hard), but at
> least _possible_ in theory. I have yet to see any actual *reasons* for
> licensing under the GPLv3, though.
[ snip ]
One thing that would
Linus Torvalds wrote:
[ snip ]
I consider dual-licensing unlikely (and technically quite hard), but at
least _possible_ in theory. I have yet to see any actual *reasons* for
licensing under the GPLv3, though.
[ snip ]
One thing that would make that easier in the future is if contributers
at le
> > GPLv2 probably forbids Tivoisation anyway. Which is good IMHO even if not
>
>
> Now that is a bit waving in the air. GPLv2 forbids Tivoisation
> theoretically but practically it didnt stop them doing it practically.
They've never been given permission and there is no ca
> http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1915720,00.asp
> has the answer. Quoting Linus:
>
> "If you want to license a program under any later version of the
> GPL, you have
> to state so explicitly. Linux never did."
>
> Hence, unless there's a "GPL 2 or later", all the "unspecified GPL" files
> ar
On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 01:02:42 +0530 "debian developer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And what does Andrew Morton think of all this? I really want to know
> his opinions
I have yet to see Linus make a statement on these matters with which
I didn't agree.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the
On 6/10/07, Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> licensing under the GPLv3, though. All I've heard are shrill voices about
> "tivoization" (which I expressly think is ok) and panicked worries about
GPLv2 probably forbids Tivoisation anyway. Which is good IMHO even if not
On 6/10/07, Tarkan Erimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
debian developer wrote:
> On 6/10/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Sun, 10 Jun 2007, Tarkan Erimer wrote:
>>
>> >> > And maybe another questions should be : How long a copyright
>> owner can
>> >> > hold the copyright, i
Linus Torvalds wrote:
I still think GPLv2 is simply the better license.
Ditto.
Jeff
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read t
> licensing under the GPLv3, though. All I've heard are shrill voices about
> "tivoization" (which I expressly think is ok) and panicked worries about
GPLv2 probably forbids Tivoisation anyway. Which is good IMHO even if not
yours 8)
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe l
On Sun, 10 Jun 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> I have yet to see any actual *reasons* for licensing under the GPLv3,
> though.
Btw, if Sun really _is_ going to release OpenSolaris under GPLv3, that
_may_ be a good reason. I don't think the GPLv3 is as good a license as
v2, but on the other ha
On Sun, 10 Jun 2007, Tarkan Erimer wrote:
> >
> > Last heard, Linus was quite impressed with the toned down version of
> > the final draft of GPLv3.
I was impressed in the sense that it was a hell of a lot better than the
disaster that were the earlier drafts.
I still think GPLv2 is simply th
On Sun, Jun 10, 2007 at 05:21:53PM +0300, Tarkan Erimer wrote:
> I hope we should upgrade to GPLv3 and Sun should "Dual License" the
> OpenSolaris via GPLv3 (or at least,GPLv3 should be CDDL compatible.).
The OpenSolaris community has already stated that they do not want to
accept GPLv3, why not
On Sun, Jun 10, 2007 at 04:25:55PM +0530, debian developer wrote:
> On 6/10/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Sun, 10 Jun 2007, Tarkan Erimer wrote:
> >
> > >> > And maybe another questions should be : How long a copyright owner
> > can
> > >> > hold the copyright, if died
On Sun, 2007-06-10 at 19:36 +1000, Neil Brown wrote:
> I presume the heirs of the dead people could change the license. And
> if they have no heir, then there is no-one to sue for breach of
> copyright, so I assume the copyright lapses.
>
> And I wouldn't be surprised if there were some legal pr
> Please read the German "Gesetz über Urheberrecht und verwandte
> Schutzrechte" before making completely false claims - in Germany it's
> 70 years after the death of the author.
Oups, I had been mixing up named published works and anonymously
published works.
My previous claim is valid for anon
On Sun, Jun 10, 2007 at 04:23:20PM +0200, Michael Gerdau wrote:
> > In most of the law systems out there the copyright stays valid for 70
> > years (or so) after the holder's death.
>
> [I don't want to appear picky but IMO it is important to be as precise
> as one could possibly be, therefor...]
[legal precedence to force waiving copyright>
> A legal precedent valid in all jurisdictions?
>
> Harald suceessfully takes legal actions against people violating his
> copyright on the Linux kernel under the terms of the GPL in Germany at
> German courts based on German laws.
>
> If someone
> In most of the law systems out there the copyright stays valid for 70
> years (or so) after the holder's death.
[I don't want to appear picky but IMO it is important to be as precise
as one could possibly be, therefor...]
That is not quite correct. At least for the german law system and
presum
debian developer wrote:
On 6/10/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sun, 10 Jun 2007, Tarkan Erimer wrote:
>> > And maybe another questions should be : How long a copyright
owner can
>> > hold the copyright, if died or lost for sometime ? if died, the
>> > copyright still s
On Sunday 10 June 2007 09:40:23 Alan Cox wrote:
> > But I think this is largely academic. You only need a fairly small
> > number of fairly significant contributors to say "no" and the rest of
> > the process would be pointless. And at last count, the number of
> > kernel people who were not keen
On Sun, Jun 10, 2007 at 07:36:39PM +1000, Neil Brown wrote:
>...
> And I wouldn't be surprised if there were some legal precedent that
> allowed for some process whereby we could make a "best effort" to
> contact copyright holders (including registered paper letters and
> entries in the "Public Not
> But I think this is largely academic. You only need a fairly small
> number of fairly significant contributors to say "no" and the rest of
> the process would be pointless. And at last count, the number of
> kernel people who were not keen on GPLv3 was fairly high. Of course
> no-one knows for
On Sunday 10 June 2007 08:45:41 Jiri Kosina wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Jun 2007, Neil Brown wrote:
> > I presume the heirs of the dead people could change the license. And if
> > they have no heir, then there is no-one to sue for breach of copyright,
> > so I assume the copyright lapses.
>
> In most of t
On Sun, 10 Jun 2007, Neil Brown wrote:
> I presume the heirs of the dead people could change the license. And if
> they have no heir, then there is no-one to sue for breach of copyright,
> so I assume the copyright lapses.
In most of the law systems out there the copyright stays valid for 70
On Jun 10 2007 10:17, Simon Arlott wrote:
>On 10/06/07 09:37, Tarkan Erimer wrote:
>> BTW,I found a really interesting blog entry about which code in Linux
>> Kernel is using which version of GPL :
>>
>> http://6thsenseless.blogspot.com/2007/02/how-much-linux-kernel-code-is-gpl-2.html
>>
>> You'
On 6/10/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sun, 10 Jun 2007, Tarkan Erimer wrote:
>> > And maybe another questions should be : How long a copyright owner can
>> > hold the copyright, if died or lost for sometime ? if died, the
>> > copyright still should be valid or not ? If
On Sun, 10 Jun 2007, Tarkan Erimer wrote:
> And maybe another questions should be : How long a copyright owner can
> hold the copyright, if died or lost for sometime ? if died, the
> copyright still should be valid or not ? If lost, what the law orders at
> this point for copyright holding
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 10 Jun 2007, Tarkan Erimer wrote:
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 11:43:28 +0300
From: Tarkan Erimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote:
On Sat, 2007-06-09
On Sunday June 10, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hi Neil,
>
> Neil Brown wrote:
> > On Saturday June 9, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> As we know the forthcoming GPL V3 will be not compatible with the GPL V2
> >> and Linux Kernel is GPL V2 only.
> >> So, another point is, which i
On 10/06/07 09:37, Tarkan Erimer wrote:
> BTW,I found a really interesting blog entry about which code in Linux
> Kernel is using which version of GPL :
>
> http://6thsenseless.blogspot.com/2007/02/how-much-linux-kernel-code-is-gpl-2.html
>
>
> The work done on a Linux 2.6.20. The result is quit
On Jun 10 2007 11:37, Tarkan Erimer wrote:
>
> Thanks for the corrections ;-) The whole picture is more clear now for me :-)
> BTW,I found a really interesting blog entry about which code in Linux Kernel
> is
> using which version of GPL :
>
> http://6thsenseless.blogspot.com/2007/02/how-much-lin
Hi Neil,
Neil Brown wrote:
On Saturday June 9, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
As we know the forthcoming GPL V3 will be not compatible with the GPL V2
and Linux Kernel is GPL V2 only.
So, another point is, which is previously mentioned by Linus and others,
that if it is decided to upgrade t
Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote:
On Sat, 2007-06-09 15:57:55 +1000, Neil Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Saturday June 9, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As we know the forthcoming GPL V3 will be not compatible with the GPL V2
and Linux Kernel is GPL V2 only.
So, another point is, which is previou
Hi David,
David Schwartz wrote:
But; if the Linux kernel should Dual-Licensed (GPL V2 and GPL V3), it
will allow us the both worlds' fruits like code exchanging from other
Open Source Projects (OpenSolaris etc.) that is compatible with GPL V3
and not with GPL V2 and of course the opposite is app
On Sat, 2007-06-09 15:57:55 +1000, Neil Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Saturday June 9, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > As we know the forthcoming GPL V3 will be not compatible with the GPL V2
> > and Linux Kernel is GPL V2 only.
> > So, another point is, which is previously mentioned by Linus
> But; if the Linux kernel should Dual-Licensed (GPL V2 and GPL V3), it
> will allow us the both worlds' fruits like code exchanging from other
> Open Source Projects (OpenSolaris etc.) that is compatible with GPL V3
> and not with GPL V2 and of course the opposite is applicable,too.
That is a mi
On Saturday June 9, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hi,
>
> As we know the forthcoming GPL V3 will be not compatible with the GPL V2
> and Linux Kernel is GPL V2 only.
> So, another point is, which is previously mentioned by Linus and others,
> that if it is decided to upgrade the Linux Kernel's Lice
1001 - 1069 of 1069 matches
Mail list logo
