Yes, from the FSF side of things, having the FSF own the copyright is
handy for upgrading licenses;
Probably everyone here knows, but for the archives: FSF holding
copyright is about more than being handy for license changes. It's
about defending the program's copyright in court. This i
On 05/04/2010 09:53 AM, Peter Seebach wrote:
> In message , "Alfred M. Szmidt" writes:
>> If the FSF is the copyright holder, then there is no (legal) need to
>> ask the original author about permission to relicense the work. It
>> might be a nice thing to do, but if the original author says no fo
On 05/04/2010 05:53 PM, Peter Seebach wrote:
In message, "Alfred M. Szmidt" writes:
If the FSF is the copyright holder, then there is no (legal) need to
ask the original author about permission to relicense the work. It
might be a nice thing to do, but if the original author says no for
some re
Peter Seebach wrote:
> In message , "Alfred M. Szmidt" writes:
>>If the FSF is the copyright holder, then there is no (legal) need to
>>ask the original author about permission to relicense the work. It
>>might be a nice thing to do, but if the original author says no for
>>some reason, the FSF ca
Hello Peter,
* Peter Seebach wrote on Tue, May 04, 2010 at 05:53:56PM CEST:
> In message , "Alfred M. Szmidt" writes:
> >If the FSF is the copyright holder, then there is no (legal) need to
> >ask the original author about permission to relicense the work. It
> >might be a nice thing to do, but i
In message <201005042150.o44lolls015...@f7.net>, Karl Berry writes:
>Aside from that: the FSF will also accept a copyright disclaimer,
>putting changes in the public domain. So if that's your preference (as
>I think I saw in another message), it is fine.
Ahh, that would work nicely.
My proposal
Hi Peter,
if the FSF needs a copyright assignment, does that not imply that I
no longer get to choose the copyright?
As the author, your desire/recommendation would carry a lot of weight :).
If you want it released under LGPLv2+, I can't imagine there being a
problem with that.
Aside fro
In message <4be03f2d.7090...@redhat.com>, Eric Blake writes:
>As original author, you get to choose the license that will be used
>within gnulib. I see nothing wrong with you declaring that the
>setproctitle module is LGPLv2+.
Ahh, okay.
That said, the more I look at this, the less sure I am tha
In message , "Alfred M. Szmidt" writes:
>If the FSF is the copyright holder, then there is no (legal) need to
>ask the original author about permission to relicense the work. It
>might be a nice thing to do, but if the original author says no for
>some reason, the FSF can still relicense the work;
>> Can you simply declare the copyright to be LGPLv2+? Many
>> modules are already LGPLv2+ (see modules/*).
>
> I could if I were just releasing the code myself, but if the FSF
> needs a copyright assignment, does that not imply that I no
> longer get to choose the copyright?
On 05/04/2010 09:21 AM, Peter Seebach wrote:
> In message <87r5lr51hh@meyering.net>, Jim Meyering writes:
>> Can you simply declare the copyright to be LGPLv2+?
>> Many modules are already LGPLv2+ (see modules/*).
>
> I could if I were just releasing the code myself, but if the FSF needs
> a c
In message <87r5lr51hh@meyering.net>, Jim Meyering writes:
>Can you simply declare the copyright to be LGPLv2+?
>Many modules are already LGPLv2+ (see modules/*).
I could if I were just releasing the code myself, but if the FSF needs
a copyright assignment, does that not imply that I no longer
Peter Seebach wrote:
> In message <87hbmo5fzq@meyering.net>, Jim Meyering writes:
>>Thanks for volunteering. Yes, this would be useful.
>>There are many implementations floating around.
>
> There are indeed a ton.
>
>>Can you assign copyright to the FSF?
>
> I think I can. There is some ambi
Peter Seebach wrote:
> Is there any interest in attempting to provide a moderately portable
> setproctitle()?
Yes, because it looks like a portable implementation will have to use
different approaches on different platforms. [1] has the following:
- use the function setproctitle.
- use pstat(P
In message <87hbmo5fzq@meyering.net>, Jim Meyering writes:
>Thanks for volunteering. Yes, this would be useful.
>There are many implementations floating around.
There are indeed a ton.
>Can you assign copyright to the FSF?
I think I can. There is some ambiguity about the IP agreement at $d
Peter Seebach wrote:
> Is there any interest in attempting to provide a moderately portable
> setproctitle()? (I think it would be reasonable for it to, on some
> systems, simply fail to do anything...)
>
> Apparently, this functionality exists in "util-linux-ng", and sendmail has
> an implementat
16 matches
Mail list logo
