om: Reyk Floeter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2007 13:23:04 +0200
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: That whole "Linux stealing our code" thing
>
> Hi!
>
> I just returned from vacation where I was offline for about two weeks.
> So I totally mis
TED]
Subject: Re: That whole "Linux stealing our code" thing
Hi!
I just returned from vacation where I was offline for about two weeks.
So I totally missed the incidence and all the surrounding discussion.
I'm just digging through many many mails in my inbox from OpenBSD
users and develop
: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
Hi!
I just returned from vacation where I was offline for about two weeks.
So I totally missed the incidence and all the surrounding discussion.
I'm just digging through many many mails in my inbox from OpenBSD
users and developers, Linux people, GNU
> - If you receive dual licensed code, you may not delete the license
> you don't like and then distribute it. It has to stay, because you
> may not edit someone's else's license -- which is a three-part legal
> document (For instance: Copyright notice, BSD, followed by GPL).
This is
> co-operation. Together we advance our detective work and knowledge of
> the Macintosh platforms to the good of all Macintosh users dumped"
>
> Alan Cox circa 1999.
>
> http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/xorg/2007-August/027419.html
>
> "well I'd be quite happy to see X go GPL but I'm aware
co-operation. Together we advance our detective work and knowledge of
the Macintosh platforms to the good of all Macintosh users dumped
Alan Cox circa 1999.
http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/xorg/2007-August/027419.html
well I'd be quite happy to see X go GPL but I'm aware
thats
- If you receive dual licensed code, you may not delete the license
you don't like and then distribute it. It has to stay, because you
may not edit someone's else's license -- which is a three-part legal
document (For instance: Copyright notice, BSD, followed by GPL).
This is absolute
On Sun, 02 Sep 2007 01:09:18 EDT, "Constantine A. Murenin" said:
> The idea here is that no patching was needed in the first place --
> most of the files are/were BSD-licensed, because they were forked from
> OpenBSD.
Oh, silly me. For some reason, I had it in my head that Jiri's original
patch
On 01/09/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 02 Sep 2007 03:55:37 +0200, Adrian Bunk said:
>
> > Jiri's patch would have wrongly not only removed the BSD statement from
> > dual licenced files but also from not dual licenced files.
> >
> > This was a mistake in this patch
On Sun, 02 Sep 2007 03:55:37 +0200, Adrian Bunk said:
> Jiri's patch would have wrongly not only removed the BSD statement from
> dual licenced files but also from not dual licenced files.
>
> This was a mistake in this patch (that was never merged into the tree)
> neither Jiri nor Alan
On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 08:36:24PM -0400, Jason Dixon wrote:
>
> On Sep 1, 2007, at 5:52 PM, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>
>> OK, I begin to understand this, there seem to be three different types
>> of files changed by Jiri's patch:
>> 1. dual licenced files planned to make GPL-only
>> 2. previously dual
On Sep 1, 2007, at 9:58 PM, Casey Dahlin wrote:
Suppose you saw some other variant of *nix that had some code you
wanted to use, but there was a gaping security hole in it. Wouldn't
you patch it before you incorporated it? and would it be your fault
if this fix made the code not work with
On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 09:58:26PM -0400, Casey Dahlin wrote:
> Suppose you saw some other variant of *nix that had some code you wanted
> to use, but there was a gaping security hole in it. Wouldn't you patch
> it before you incorporated it? and would it be your fault if this fix
> made the
Suppose you saw some other variant of *nix that had some code you wanted
to use, but there was a gaping security hole in it. Wouldn't you patch
it before you incorporated it? and would it be your fault if this fix
made the code not work with the original?
We took the code and fixed a gaping
On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 08:36:24PM -0400, Jason Dixon wrote:
> On Sep 1, 2007, at 5:52 PM, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>
>> OK, I begin to understand this, there seem to be three different types
>> of files changed by Jiri's patch:
>> 1. dual licenced files planned to make GPL-only
>> 2. previously dual
On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 09:42:54PM -0400, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> We asked SFLC to work with us to make sure that everyone's copyrights
> were respected in the right places, and that the licenses various developers
> wanted for their copyrights were implemented correctly. The patch I sent
>
Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
On 01/09/07, Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Jason Dixon wrote:
Once the grantor (Reyk) releases his code under that license, it must
remain. You are free to derive work and redistribute under your
license, but the original copyright and license permission
On 9/1/07, Constantine A. Murenin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 01/09/07, Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Jason Dixon wrote:
> > > Once the grantor (Reyk) releases his code under that license, it must
> > > remain. You are free to derive work and redistribute under your
> > >
On 01/09/07, Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jason Dixon wrote:
> > Once the grantor (Reyk) releases his code under that license, it must
> > remain. You are free to derive work and redistribute under your
> > license, but the original copyright and license permission remains
> > intact.
Jason Dixon wrote:
Once the grantor (Reyk) releases his code under that license, it must
remain. You are free to derive work and redistribute under your
license, but the original copyright and license permission remains
intact. Many other entities (Microsoft, Apple, Sun, etc) have used BSD
On Sep 1, 2007, at 5:52 PM, Adrian Bunk wrote:
OK, I begin to understand this, there seem to be three different types
of files changed by Jiri's patch:
1. dual licenced files planned to make GPL-only
2. previously dual licenced files with a too recent version used
planned
to make GPL-only
On Sep 1, 2007, at 5:52 PM, Adrian Bunk wrote:
OK, I begin to understand this, there seem to be three different types
of files changed by Jiri's patch:
1. dual licenced files planned to make GPL-only
2. previously dual licenced files with a too recent version used
planned
to make GPL-only
Jason Dixon wrote:
Once the grantor (Reyk) releases his code under that license, it must
remain. You are free to derive work and redistribute under your
license, but the original copyright and license permission remains
intact. Many other entities (Microsoft, Apple, Sun, etc) have used BSD
On 01/09/07, Jeff Garzik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jason Dixon wrote:
Once the grantor (Reyk) releases his code under that license, it must
remain. You are free to derive work and redistribute under your
license, but the original copyright and license permission remains
intact. Many
On 9/1/07, Constantine A. Murenin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 01/09/07, Jeff Garzik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jason Dixon wrote:
Once the grantor (Reyk) releases his code under that license, it must
remain. You are free to derive work and redistribute under your
license, but the
Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
On 01/09/07, Jeff Garzik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jason Dixon wrote:
Once the grantor (Reyk) releases his code under that license, it must
remain. You are free to derive work and redistribute under your
license, but the original copyright and license permission
On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 09:42:54PM -0400, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
We asked SFLC to work with us to make sure that everyone's copyrights
were respected in the right places, and that the licenses various developers
wanted for their copyrights were implemented correctly. The patch I sent
On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 08:36:24PM -0400, Jason Dixon wrote:
On Sep 1, 2007, at 5:52 PM, Adrian Bunk wrote:
OK, I begin to understand this, there seem to be three different types
of files changed by Jiri's patch:
1. dual licenced files planned to make GPL-only
2. previously dual licenced
Suppose you saw some other variant of *nix that had some code you wanted
to use, but there was a gaping security hole in it. Wouldn't you patch
it before you incorporated it? and would it be your fault if this fix
made the code not work with the original?
We took the code and fixed a gaping
On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 09:58:26PM -0400, Casey Dahlin wrote:
Suppose you saw some other variant of *nix that had some code you wanted
to use, but there was a gaping security hole in it. Wouldn't you patch
it before you incorporated it? and would it be your fault if this fix
made the code
On Sep 1, 2007, at 9:58 PM, Casey Dahlin wrote:
Suppose you saw some other variant of *nix that had some code you
wanted to use, but there was a gaping security hole in it. Wouldn't
you patch it before you incorporated it? and would it be your fault
if this fix made the code not work with
On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 08:36:24PM -0400, Jason Dixon wrote:
On Sep 1, 2007, at 5:52 PM, Adrian Bunk wrote:
OK, I begin to understand this, there seem to be three different types
of files changed by Jiri's patch:
1. dual licenced files planned to make GPL-only
2. previously dual licenced
On Sun, 02 Sep 2007 03:55:37 +0200, Adrian Bunk said:
Jiri's patch would have wrongly not only removed the BSD statement from
dual licenced files but also from not dual licenced files.
This was a mistake in this patch (that was never merged into the tree)
neither Jiri nor Alan noticed.
On 01/09/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 02 Sep 2007 03:55:37 +0200, Adrian Bunk said:
Jiri's patch would have wrongly not only removed the BSD statement from
dual licenced files but also from not dual licenced files.
This was a mistake in this patch (that was
On Sun, 02 Sep 2007 01:09:18 EDT, Constantine A. Murenin said:
The idea here is that no patching was needed in the first place --
most of the files are/were BSD-licensed, because they were forked from
OpenBSD.
Oh, silly me. For some reason, I had it in my head that Jiri's original
patch
35 matches
Mail list logo
