On 11 Sep 2007, Karl Kurbjun outgrape:
> I would not want to blindly assign my copyright to any one organization
> without regard to our rights. I would prefer to keep my freedom with the
> code while I am functional mentally and alive.
>
> On Ray's arguments: I do not think that relicensing wou
Dave Chapman wrote:
> 1) We start to incorporate GPLv3 code like espeak into Rockbox. Our own
> "any version" license allows us to do that, but then Rockbox as a whole
> would be GPLv3.
For the reasons Daniel gave in his very first response, I don't see this as
being a viable option. The source f
> Jens Arnold wrote:
>> I would be happy to see any of my contributed code relicensed
>> under GPLv3, exactly *because* of the clauses in it which should
>> prevent both TiVoization and usage for DRM purposes.
>
> Tivo-isation has been used as a phrase here a few times, but I am unclear
> as to wha
On 9/12/07, Mike Holden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Tivo-isation has been used as a phrase here a few times, but I am unclear
> as to what exactly this is. Can someone put it in simple terms for me to
> understand please?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tivoisation
Jens Arnold wrote:
> I would be happy to see any of my contributed code relicensed
> under GPLv3, exactly *because* of the clauses in it which should
> prevent both TiVoization and usage for DRM purposes.
Tivo-isation has been used as a phrase here a few times, but I am unclear
as to what exactly
Hi Ray :))
* Ray Lambert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> dixit:
> DervishD wrote:
> > * Ray Lambert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> dixit:
> >> I would recommend that, upon making this move, we require that all
> >> submitters henceforth explicitly license under "GPLv3 or later"
> >
> > What's wrong with "GPLv3
Hi all !
Recently the IRC channel has been rather full of discussion around the
current licensing of Rockbox (GPLV2 is how most people interpret it,
but it *is* a little unclear), and whether or not we should move to
GPLV3 in order to include code from other such projects (espeak is the
primary
