Toby Speight <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 0> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> 0> Ben L. Pfaff mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ("Ben") wrote:
>
> Ben> I think that you may be confusing GPLv3 and the GFDL. The GFDL
> Ben> is the license with optional Invariant Sections. The GPLv3 does
> Ben> not have
0> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
0> Ben L. Pfaff mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ("Ben") wrote:
Ben> I think that you may be confusing GPLv3 and the GFDL. The GFDL
Ben> is the license with optional Invariant Sections. The GPLv3 does
Ben> not have any concept with that name.
Absolutely right - I was
Toby Speight <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I believe I chose GPL v2 for the above (I have a healthy distrust of
> making commitments to future unknowns). Is it fair to say that GPL v3
> with no Invariant Sections is reasonably closely equivalent to GPL v2?
I think that you may be confusing GPLv3
> "PSG" == Peter S Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
PSG> Milan Zamazal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> When I met a proprietary Elisp program several years ago and
>> wondered about this phenomenon on an Emacs mailing list, it was
>> explained to me that a program needn't be
Milan Zamazal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > "PSG" == Peter S Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> PSG> I thought this was a fairly clear-cut issue, but people on
> PSG> -legal seem to be saying that you can use a (possibly
> PSG> interpreted instead of linked) GPL'ed library
> "PSG" == Peter S Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
PSG> I thought this was a fairly clear-cut issue, but people on
PSG> -legal seem to be saying that you can use a (possibly
PSG> interpreted instead of linked) GPL'ed library with code of any
PSG> license, so there's no pr
Miles Bader <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Toby Speight <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I believe I chose GPL v2 for the above (I have a healthy distrust of
> > making commitments to future unknowns).
>
> It seems vaguely absurd to worry about such things given the small size
> of the package.
I d
Toby Speight <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I believe I chose GPL v2 for the above (I have a healthy distrust of
> making commitments to future unknowns).
It seems vaguely absurd to worry about such things given the small size
of the package.
-Miles
--
97% of everything is grunge
--
To UNSUBSC
0> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
0> Peter S. Galbraith mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ("Peter") wrote:
Peter> For the source emacs-goodies-el package, the only files affected are:
Peter>
Peter> ,
Peter> | ;;; home-end.el --- Alternative Home and End commands.
Peter> | ;; Copyright 1996 Kai Grossj
Peter S Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Probable okay, but doesn't specify a version number at all:
> ,
> |;;; minibuf-electric.el -- Electric minibuffer behavior from XEmacs.
[...]
> |;; GPL.
> `
Although it is probably worth checking with the authors in any
case, you might note
Sven Joachim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Peter S Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > This isn't strictly an Emacs isuue, but it certainly affects us...
> >
> > As I understand it, the GPL v3 is more strict then the GPL v2 and thus
> > is incompatible. Is that correct?
>
> It seems so,
Tatsuya Kinoshita <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think that even if distribution of *.elc file should be licensed
> under GPLv3, *.el file under non-GPLv3 can be distributed, because
> locally installation and byte-compilation are not limited by GPLv3.
I disagree. It's not simply about byte-comp
Tatsuya Kinoshita <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> (Cc: debian-legal)
I have redistribuated the original email I sent to -emacsen to -legal,
for proper context.
Peter
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Cc: debian-legal)
On September 4, 2007 at 6:43PM +0200,
svenjoac (at gmx.de) wrote:
> > So if we have any such elisp code in Debian, should we exclude
> > installation and byte-compilation for versions of Emacs that are
> > licensed under the GPL v3? I presume this includes emacs-snapshot and
>
Peter S Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This isn't strictly an Emacs isuue, but it certainly affects us...
>
> As I understand it, the GPL v3 is more strict then the GPL v2 and thus
> is incompatible. Is that correct?
It seems so, see
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#v2v3Compatib
This isn't strictly an Emacs isuue, but it certainly affects us...
As I understand it, the GPL v3 is more strict then the GPL v2 and thus
is incompatible. Is that correct?
That means that as Emacs migrates to GPL v3, and elisp code licensed
under the GPL v2 (without the "or any later version" bi
16 matches
Mail list logo
