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
15 matches
Mail list logo
