Op 05-01-14 15:57, Clint Adams schreef:
> On Sat, Jan 04, 2014 at 05:07:29PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
>> This goes for GPLvX "or later", but also for other "or later" licenses,
>> where they exist.
>>
>> I'm convinced that the GPLv2 is a free license, but I'm so far undecided
>> on the GPLv3 (
Hi Dimitri,
On Mon, 6 Jan 2014 15:22:09 +, Dimitri John Ledkov
wrote:
> But GPL text does confuse me as a whole, no modifications nor derivate
> works of the GPL license text are allowed, and the original text has
> "and later" clause - is licensing without "and later" constitues
> modificati
On 6 January 2014 15:07, David Weinehall wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jan 04, 2014 at 03:13:01AM +, Clint Adams wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 01, 2014 at 10:58:32AM +0100, David Weinehall wrote:
> > > That's also why I *don't* use BSD-style licenses for software that
> > > I write, but rather GPLv2 or LGPLv2.1
On Sat, Jan 04, 2014 at 03:13:01AM +, Clint Adams wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 01, 2014 at 10:58:32AM +0100, David Weinehall wrote:
> > That's also why I *don't* use BSD-style licenses for software that
> > I write, but rather GPLv2 or LGPLv2.1.
>
> So if someone takes your LGPLv2.1-only software and
On Sun, 5 Jan 2014, Clint Adams wrote:
> because any code under this license would be deliberately incompatible
> with anything else FOR NO GOOD REASON.
Uhm, then stop advocating the GNU GPL, which is deliberately incompatible
with anything else FOR NO GOOD REASON.
bye,
//mirabilos
--
[16:04:33
On Sat, Jan 04, 2014 at 05:07:29PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> This goes for GPLvX "or later", but also for other "or later" licenses,
> where they exist.
>
> I'm convinced that the GPLv2 is a free license, but I'm so far undecided
> on the GPLv3 (mainly because I've not read the license text
Hi there!
On Sat, 04 Jan 2014 04:29:02 +0100, Paul Tagliamonte wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 08:59:53AM -0600, Matt Zagrabelny wrote:
>> > So your doomsday scenario is that if you license something
>> > GPLv2+, someone might fork and modify it to be GPLv3+,
>>
>> I was under the impression tha
On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 08:59:53AM -0600, Matt Zagrabelny wrote:
> > So your doomsday scenario is that if you license something
> > GPLv2+, someone might fork and modify it to be GPLv3+,
>
> I was under the impression that forks couldn't change licenses. Is the
> scenario which Clint describes (le
On Wed, Jan 01, 2014 at 10:58:32AM +0100, David Weinehall wrote:
> That's also why I *don't* use BSD-style licenses for software that
> I write, but rather GPLv2 or LGPLv2.1.
So if someone takes your LGPLv2.1-only software and adds GPLv2-only
code to it, do you feel similarly betrayed because you
Florian Weimer writes ("Re: GPLv2-only considered harmful"):
> ASL 2.0 compatibility is nice, but the GPLv3 also contains this clause
> which (in my opinion) substantially weakens its copyleft effect:
>
> | You may convey covered works to others for the sole purpose o
On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 02:54:50PM +, Clint Adams wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 03:50:06AM +0100, David Weinehall wrote:
> > Apart from the termination clause, the GPLv2 is far more concise,
> > I don't see tivoization as a problem (it's the software I want to
> > protect, not anyone's combi
On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 08:59:53AM -0600, Matt Zagrabelny wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 8:54 AM, Clint Adams wrote:
> > On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 03:50:06AM +0100, David Weinehall wrote:
> >> Apart from the termination clause, the GPLv2 is far more concise,
> >> I don't see tivoization as a probl
Matt,
Yes, it is possible, but only the contributions of the fork would be
GPLv3 only, the original GPLv2+ code would still be just that.
Nevertheless, the final product would be GPLv3 only.
Cameron Norman
On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 6:59 AM, Matt Zagrabelny
wrote:
On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 8:5
On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 8:54 AM, Clint Adams wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 03:50:06AM +0100, David Weinehall wrote:
>> Apart from the termination clause, the GPLv2 is far more concise,
>> I don't see tivoization as a problem (it's the software I want to
>> protect, not anyone's combination of i
On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 03:50:06AM +0100, David Weinehall wrote:
> Apart from the termination clause, the GPLv2 is far more concise,
> I don't see tivoization as a problem (it's the software I want to
> protect, not anyone's combination of it with hardware), nor do I care
> about compatibility with
On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 05:59:35PM -0500, Stephen M. Webb wrote:
> Nope. An organization that will not accept the GPLv3 because of the
> tivoization and patent clauses will not accept
> GPLv2 or later. The "or later" clause means a downstream can invoke their
> rights under the GPLv3 to demand
* Clint Adams:
> The only theoretical advantage I see to GPLv2 is in the termination
> clause, and in practice that seems to be really more trouble than
> it's worth.
>
> Beyond that you have substandard and unclear wording, tivoization,
> lesser patent protection, and incompatibility with Apache
* Stephen M. Webb:
> Nope. An organization that will not accept the GPLv3 because of the
> tivoization and patent clauses will not accept GPLv2 or later.
Apple allegedly rejects the GPLv3, but continues to distribute
GPLv2-or-later code.
Microsoft distributes GPLv2-or-later code, too.
--
To
On 2013-12-28 19:24:33 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Now, the companies in question may legitimately regard a GPLv2+
> upstream as a source business risk, because they have no guarantee
> that future versions of the software won't be made available under
> GPLv3+ instead of GPLv2+, and if they're
On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 08:38:09PM -0500, Stephen M. Webb wrote:
> On 12/28/2013 07:51 PM, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> > The "or later" means "or later" and just that. It doesn't mean
> > a downstream can say they received it under the later version.
> > And the upstream can't claim that either.
> The
On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 08:53:56PM +, Clint Adams wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 09:45:09AM +0100, David Weinehall wrote:
> > As one of the "GPL v2 only" proponents, I take affront. I choose to
> > license what little software I release as GPL v2 only because I do not
> > consider the GPL v3
On 2013-12-28 17:59:35 -0500, Stephen M. Webb wrote:
> On 12/28/2013 04:15 PM, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> > On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 04:11:18PM -0500, Stephen M. Webb wrote:
> >> There are organization who will allow v2 but not v3 because of
> >> the tivoizaton and patent clauses. A developer may want his
On 12/28/2013 07:51 PM, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
>
> The "or later" means "or later" and just that. It doesn't mean
> a downstream can say they received it under the later version.
> And the upstream can't claim that either.
The "or later" means my clients' lawyers state unequivocally that they will n
On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 05:59:35PM -0500, Stephen M. Webb wrote:
> On 12/28/2013 04:15 PM, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> > On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 04:11:18PM -0500, Stephen M. Webb wrote:
> >> On 12/28/2013 03:53 PM, Clint Adams wrote:
> >>> On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 09:45:09AM +0100, David Weinehall wrote:
>
On 28/12/13 22:59, Stephen M. Webb wrote:
> On 12/28/2013 04:15 PM, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
>> On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 04:11:18PM -0500, Stephen M. Webb wrote:
>>> There are organization who will allow v2 but not v3 because of the
>>> tivoizaton and patent clauses. A developer may want
>>> his work to
On Sun, 29 Dec 2013 02:59:35 +0400, Stephen M. Webb
wrote:
On 12/28/2013 04:15 PM, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 04:11:18PM -0500, Stephen M. Webb wrote:
On 12/28/2013 03:53 PM, Clint Adams wrote:
On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 09:45:09AM +0100, David Weinehall wrote:
As one of the "G
On 12/28/2013 04:15 PM, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 04:11:18PM -0500, Stephen M. Webb wrote:
>> On 12/28/2013 03:53 PM, Clint Adams wrote:
>>> On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 09:45:09AM +0100, David Weinehall wrote:
As one of the "GPL v2 only" proponents, I take affront. I choose to
On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 04:11:18PM -0500, Stephen M. Webb wrote:
> On 12/28/2013 03:53 PM, Clint Adams wrote:
> > On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 09:45:09AM +0100, David Weinehall wrote:
> >> As one of the "GPL v2 only" proponents, I take affront. I choose to
> >> license what little software I release as
On 12/28/2013 03:53 PM, Clint Adams wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 09:45:09AM +0100, David Weinehall wrote:
>> As one of the "GPL v2 only" proponents, I take affront. I choose to
>> license what little software I release as GPL v2 only because I do not
>> consider the GPL v3 to have what attract
On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 09:45:09AM +0100, David Weinehall wrote:
> As one of the "GPL v2 only" proponents, I take affront. I choose to
> license what little software I release as GPL v2 only because I do not
> consider the GPL v3 to have what attracted me to use the GPL v2 in the
> first place.
T
30 matches
Mail list logo
