[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Kenner) writes:
>> Seems simple: the COPYING file contains the conditions, and all files
>> have the same as well. And it's all directly from the copyright holder.
>
> Except quite often it ISN'T direct from the copyright holder. E.g., a
> RedHat or Debian distribution.
> > If A obtains software from the FSF and distributes it to B, who
> > distributes it to C who, in turn, distributes it to D, there is a
> > license between A and the FSF, B and C, C and B, and D and C.
>
> If it were so and any of them infringes on the license, then all
> downstream users would
> > For that matter, I doubt the FSF would answer either.
>
> But this is simpler; the FSF publishes the releases, so anyone can
> compare what they got with what the FSF published, and then ask the
> distributor "do you hold the copyright for these differences?"
But many companies won't even let
On Jul 16, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Kenner) wrote:
> A license is not between the user of the software and the FSF, but between
> the user and who he got it from. My TiVo contains FSF-copyrighted software
> and I got a license to use it from TiVo, not the FSF.
GPLv2:
6. Each time
On Jul 16, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Kenner) wrote:
>> You look for copyright notices, ask the holders whether they own all
>> of that, ask the distributor who owns any other bits. If they don't
>> know or won't tell, they're up for contributory infringement,
> No, they're not because yo
> You look for copyright notices, ask the holders whether they own all
> of that, ask the distributor who owns any other bits. If they don't
> know or won't tell, they're up for contributory infringement,
No, they're not because you have no contractual relationship with them.
Back when NYU was d
On Jul 16, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Kenner) wrote:
>> On Jul 16, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Kenner) wrote:
>>
>> > the issue here is not what the license actually *is*, but how one is
>> > to *know* what it is.
>>
>> I guess if you have any doubts as to the license the distributor
On Mon, 2007-07-16 at 08:42 +0200, Basile STARYNKEVITCH wrote:
> Laurent GUERBY wrote:
> > I hope your employer follows industry standard practice of caring *a
> > lot* about licensing issues for all the software they use. You're
> > greatly mistaken if you think only compiler hackers look at softw
On Jul 16, 2007, Michael Eager <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The question is whether corporations will adopt the GPLv3 without
> review by their legal departments, and how long that review will
> take, and what the consequences of this is.
I don't dispute that. What I'm saying is that those most
On Jul 16, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Kenner) wrote:
> Let's revisit the example above. I take a file which, for the purpose of
> this example will be GPLv2. I modify that file to fix some bug. That file
> remains GPLv2 because its a derived work of a GPLv2 file and nobody has
> changed i
On Jul 13, 2007, Marcus Meissner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> GPLv3+ code is however incompatible to GPLv2+ code, so it warrants
> a major version bump.
Not quite.
GPLv2 code is incompatible with GPLv3, and vice-versa, but GPLv2+ is
compatible with GPLv3+ and vice-versa, the result of the combin
Dave Korn wrote:
On 16 July 2007 18:51, Michael Eager wrote:
I'm done with this discussion. It's not going anywhere.
That would have been just a tad more impressive if it wasn't at the end of a
long stretch of self-justification. As it was, it comes across more like
trying to have the l
On Jul 14, 2007, Michael Eager <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Krzysztof Halasa wrote:
>> Michael Eager <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> Unfortunately, as I understand it, this is not the case. If you
>>> apply a GPLv3 patch to a previously GPLv2 branch after August 1, then
>>> this entire branch, a
On 16 July 2007 18:51, Michael Eager wrote:
> I'm done with this discussion. It's not going anywhere.
That would have been just a tad more impressive if it wasn't at the end of a
long stretch of self-justification. As it was, it comes across more like
trying to have the last word and then s
> On Jul 16, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Kenner) wrote:
>
> > the issue here is not what the license actually *is*, but how one is
> > to *know* what it is.
>
> I guess if you have any doubts as to the license the distributor wants
> you to believe to be applicable, you can (i) ask the copyr
On Jul 15, 2007, Michael Eager <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It's really not possible to "un-know" the original GPLv3 patch and
> create an identical GPLv2 from scratch. The second patch is clearly
> and directly derived from the first.
OTOH, the author could claim to have developed the patch on
On Jul 16, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Kenner) wrote:
> the issue here is not what the license actually *is*, but how one is
> to *know* what it is.
I guess if you have any doubts as to the license the distributor wants
you to believe to be applicable, you can (i) ask the copyright holder,
o
On Jul 16, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Kenner) wrote:
>> A contract requires parties who come to an agreement. Further it requires
>> consideration. Neither are present in the GPL.
> Of course software licenses have consideration: one party is getting to use
> software and the other party
> From GPLv2, similar wording in GPLv3, emphasis added by me:
>
> 6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the
> Program), the recipient automatically receives a license *from the
> original licensor* to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to
> these terms and c
Richard Kenner wrote:
This is very tedious.
Indeed it is. I'm going to respond to this and your next message
simultaneously and then refer you to a text on contract law.
A license does not require the meeting of minds.
Yes, it does, since it's a contract. But "a meeting of minds" is just
On Jul 15, 2007, Brooks Moses <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thus, I think there's a reasonable argument to be made that
> distributing a GCC with some file headers saying "GPLv2 or later" and
> some saying "GPLv3 or later" is violating the license.
Why would it be? They're evidently compatible, s
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Kenner) writes:
> > Despite the lack of a relationship with anyone at FSF, many people do
> > download GPL software an use it, in accord with the license. They have
> > a legal right to use the software.
>
> A license is not between the user of the software and the FSF
> Folks, could you please take this insanely long thread out of the list?
>
> It has stopped being on-topic for a long while now.
Actually, it has turned up one question that I think we do need the answer
to. What, precisely does the FSF want done by July 31? There are releases
SVN files, and p
> This is very tedious.
Indeed it is. I'm going to respond to this and your next message
simultaneously and then refer you to a text on contract law.
> A license does not require the meeting of minds.
Yes, it does, since it's a contract. But "a meeting of minds" is just a
fancy way of saying t
Folks, could you please take this insanely long thread out of the list?
It has stopped being on-topic for a long while now.
Thanks.
Richard Kenner wrote:
A contract requires parties who come to an agreement. Further it requires
consideration. Neither are present in the GPL.
Of course software licenses have consideration: one party is getting to use
software and the other party is giving the conditions (very roughly speak
On Jul 13, 2007, Geoffrey Keating <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If there's a situation where 'silent' license upgrades can occur,
> where even just one file in a release might be GPLv3, or any other
> situation where the license is not clear, then to me that software is
> unusable. This applies to
Richard Kenner wrote:
You really are NOT a lawyer (or at least I would presume that from what
you are writing). Much of the above is just WAY off!
I am not a lawyer, but there is still no contract. No parties to the
supposed contract, no consideration, no meeting of the minds.
Yes, that's rig
> A contract requires parties who come to an agreement. Further it requires
> consideration. Neither are present in the GPL.
Of course software licenses have consideration: one party is getting to use
software and the other party is giving the conditions (very roughly speaking)
under which that
On Jul 13, 2007, Michael Eager <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Upgrade the license of every project implied that this would be
> effective for future releases, not retroactive.
Just to be clear, the FSF can't and won't withdraw the GPLv2, or
revoke any licenses granted through earlier releases. Any
> That is the point. The FSF, at this time, has said that as of August 1
> all patches are GPLv3.
No, they did not. As far as I know, they said all *releases* are GPLv3.
> You want to mix two different things and call them the same.
> The only part which matters is the creative changes.
Wrong.
Richard Kenner wrote:
A license is a form of a contract. Look at nolo.com, a site aimed at
giving legal advice to laypeople. They define "license" as "A contract
giving written permission to use ...".
A contract requires parties who come to an agreement. Further it requires
consideration.
> > You really are NOT a lawyer (or at least I would presume that from what
> > you are writing). Much of the above is just WAY off!
>
> I am not a lawyer, but there is still no contract. No parties to the
> supposed contract, no consideration, no meeting of the minds.
Yes, that's right, which i
Richard Kenner wrote:
It is source, covered by the copyright assignment. The assignment, if I
recall correctly, says that the FSF will distribute the source under license.
Yes, but doesn't say *which one*: that's the whole point here! All it
gives are very general terms that the license must
> It is source, covered by the copyright assignment. The assignment, if I
> recall correctly, says that the FSF will distribute the source under license.
Yes, but doesn't say *which one*: that's the whole point here! All it
gives are very general terms that the license must follow. That's what
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
The discussion started 18 months ago, and you were welcome to
participate all the way back then. Why bring up these issues only
now?
You seem to miss the point:
It isn't whether I have issues with the GPLv3; I don't, for the
most part.
The question is whether corporat
> >> Note that the issue, in practice, isn't what the FSF distributes but what
> >> a third party (RedHat, Apple, AdaCore, etc) distributes.
>
> FSF determines the minimum level of the GPL license, not RedHat.
Yes, sure. However, the issue here is not what the license actually
*is*, but how one
On Jul 13, 2007, Joel Sherrill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> OTOH there are a number of non-FSF entities that
> have committed morally and/or legally to providing
> long-term support for gcc directly and/or OSes that ship
> with a gcc. I really believe these people need guidance
> from the FSF on
Robert Dewar wrote:
Michael Eager wrote:
GPL is a license. The GPL is not a contract. There isn't even an
implied
contract.
You really are NOT a lawyer (or at least I would presume that from what
you are writing). Much of the above is just WAY off!
I am not a lawyer, but there is still
On Jul 13, 2007, Michael Eager <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> On Jul 13, 2007, Robert Dewar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> See, I'm not diminishing the importance of licensing issues, I'm just
>> saying it's legally irresponsible to sit back and *not* even watch
>> what'
Richard Kenner wrote:
You are assuming here that the patch ITSELF has some license that's applied
to it irrespective of the file it was derived from and I don't see the
legal basis for such a claim.
Your patch, once accepted by the FSF, becomes their property, and the
FSF, not you, determines th
Dave Korn wrote:
On 16 July 2007 14:01, Richard Kenner wrote:
Actually, this is a good point. While the FSF may declare that all
patches after Aug 1 are GPLv3, unless they take affirmative action
to assert the copyright and license, courts may determine that they
waive rights under these. Esp
> > You are assuming here that the patch ITSELF has some license that's applied
> > to it irrespective of the file it was derived from and I don't see the
> > legal basis for such a claim.
>
> Your patch, once accepted by the FSF, becomes their property, and the
> FSF, not you, determines the lice
> I have a question, which may be germane to some of this discussion: Who
> is the distributor when I download from the public svn repository on
> sourceware.org? The FSF or RedHat?
I don't think anybody knows. For most purposes, it doesn't matter. If
there were a situation where you felt the n
Richard Kenner wrote:
Actually, the two patches don't have different copyright or licenses,
given your description. It's really not possible to "un-know" the
original GPLv3 patch and create an identical GPLv2 from scratch. The
second patch is clearly and directly derived from the first.
You a
> Seems simple: the COPYING file contains the conditions, and all files
> have the same as well. And it's all directly from the copyright holder.
Except quite often it ISN'T direct from the copyright holder. E.g., a
RedHat or Debian distribution.
> > It's critical to understand that copyright an
On 16 July 2007 14:01, Richard Kenner wrote:
>> Actually, this is a good point. While the FSF may declare that all
>> patches after Aug 1 are GPLv3, unless they take affirmative action
>> to assert the copyright and license, courts may determine that they
>> waive rights under these. Especially
Richard Kenner wrote:
Actually, this is a good point. While the FSF may declare that all
patches after Aug 1 are GPLv3, unless they take affirmative action
to assert the copyright and license, courts may determine that they
waive rights under these. Especially if a reasonable person would
expe
> Actually, the two patches don't have different copyright or licenses,
> given your description. It's really not possible to "un-know" the
> original GPLv3 patch and create an identical GPLv2 from scratch. The
> second patch is clearly and directly derived from the first.
You are assuming here
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Kenner) writes:
> The problem isn't convincing somebody it's *different*, but to convince
> them that there's a reason the license is what it supposedly says it is!
Seems simple: the COPYING file contains the conditions, and all files
have the same as well. And it's all
> Actually, this is a good point. While the FSF may declare that all
> patches after Aug 1 are GPLv3, unless they take affirmative action
> to assert the copyright and license, courts may determine that they
> waive rights under these. Especially if a reasonable person would
> expect copyright st
> > At the very least, the file headers are a clear representation as to
> > what license the file is under, and IMO a reasonable person would expect
> > to be able to rely on such a representation.
>
> Actually, this is a good point. While the FSF may declare that all
> patches after Aug 1 are
I'll start this by pointing out that (like Robert), I'm not an attorney.
But both of us have been familiar with GPL and related copyright issues for
well over a decade.
> When you post a patch to the mailing list, or apply it to a branch, you are
> acting as an agent of FSF. You previously assign
Hi Krzysztof,
I hope the COPYING or similar file will contain the licence text
under which the code is distributed?
Actually the plan is to create a new file - COPYING_v3 - which will
contain the GPL version 3 and then change the copyright header in source
files over to say "version 3 (or la
Laurent GUERBY wrote:
On Thu, 2007-07-12 at 17:11 +0200, Basile STARYNKEVITCH wrote:
[...] Still, I do believe that almost all my distant colleagues from
CEA http://www.cea.fr/ (notably compiling their numerical
code for e.g. nuclear, astronomical or thermodynamical numerical
computations) will
On Thu, 2007-07-12 at 17:11 +0200, Basile STARYNKEVITCH wrote:
> [...] Still, I do believe that almost all my distant colleagues from
> CEA http://www.cea.fr/ (notably compiling their numerical
> code for e.g. nuclear, astronomical or thermodynamical numerical
> computations) will find funny a ver
Richard Kenner wrote:
Richard> Now, suppose I apply it to the GPLv2 version of the file. One could
Richard> argue that such file is now GPLv3 and I think that'd be correct.
Richard> But since the parts of the file being patched are identical, the
Richard> patch is indistinguishable from one tha
* Robert Dewar:
> One could of course just take a blanket view that everything
> on the site is, as of a certain moment, licensed under GPLv3
> (note you don't have to change file headers to achieve this,
> the file headers have no particular legal significance in
> any case).
In Germany, they ar
Brooks Moses wrote:
Robert Dewar wrote:
One could of course just take a blanket view that everything
on the site is, as of a certain moment, licensed under GPLv3
(note you don't have to change file headers to achieve this,
the file headers have no particular legal significance in
any case).
I'
Richard Kenner wrote:
Unfortunately, as I understand it, this is not the case. If you
apply a GPLv3 patch to a previously GPLv2 branch after August 1, then
this entire branch, and all files in it, magically and silently
becomes GPLv3.
This is the key point, I think: what, PRECISELY, is a "GPLv
On Thu, 2007-07-12 at 10:21 -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> David Edelsohn wrote:
>
> > Let me try to stop some confusion and accusations right here. RMS
> > *did not* request or specify GCC 4.3.3 following GCC 4.2.2. That was a
> > proposal from a member of the GCC SC. The numbering of the f
At 06:33 AM 7/15/2007, Robert Dewar wrote:
Richard Kenner wrote:
Actually the whole notion of violating a license is a confused one. The
violation is of the copyright, the license merely gives some cases in
which copying is allowed. If you copy outside the license you have not
"violated" the li
> Richard> Now, suppose I apply it to the GPLv2 version of the file. One could
> Richard> argue that such file is now GPLv3 and I think that'd be correct.
> Richard> But since the parts of the file being patched are identical, the
> Richard> patch is indistinguishable from one that's derived from
Richard Kenner wrote:
Actually the whole notion of violating a license is a confused one. The
violation is of the copyright, the license merely gives some cases in
which copying is allowed. If you copy outside the license you have not
"violated" the license, you have simply infringed the copyrig
Richard Kenner wrote:
Actually the whole notion of violating a license is a confused one. The
violation is of the copyright, the license merely gives some cases in
which copying is allowed. If you copy outside the license you have not
"violated" the license, you have simply infringed the copyrig
> Actually the whole notion of violating a license is a confused one. The
> violation is of the copyright, the license merely gives some cases in
> which copying is allowed. If you copy outside the license you have not
> "violated" the license, you have simply infringed the copyright, and the
> li
> At the very least, the file headers are a clear representation as to
> what license the file is under, and IMO a reasonable person would expect
> to be able to rely on such a representation.
Well, all I can say to this is that (with my AdaCore hat on) I had a discussion
with somebody in the pu
> Richard Kenner writes:
Richard> Now, suppose I apply it to the GPLv2 version of the file. One could
argue
Richard> that such file is now GPLv3 and I think that'd be correct. But since
the
Richard> parts of the file being patched are identical, the patch is
indistinguishable
Richard> from
> >You asked if COPYING would be updated. The answer is not necessarily.
> >The COPYING text may say GPLv2+, but if there has been a GPLv3 patch
> >applied to the branch, then the entire branch is GPLv3.
>
> I struggle to believe this. Afaik a bunch of code is released under a
> license, and noth
Richard Kenner wrote:
At what point in this process, and by what mechanism, does a patch become a
"GPLv2 patch" or a "GPLv3 patch". I'd argue that the patch itself has no
such status at all: as of the time it's posted, its copyright is owned by
the FSF, but that's all that's happened. The assi
> Come on, if the FSF (the copyright holder) distributes a program,
> and if the included licence says GPLv2+, then the licence is GPLv2+
> and you'll have a really hard time trying to convince anyone that
> it's different.
The problem isn't convincing somebody it's *different*, but to convince
th
> Unfortunately, as I understand it, this is not the case. If you
> apply a GPLv3 patch to a previously GPLv2 branch after August 1, then
> this entire branch, and all files in it, magically and silently
> becomes GPLv3.
This is the key point, I think: what, PRECISELY, is a "GPLv3 patch".
I thin
Brooks Moses wrote:
Robert Dewar wrote:
One could of course just take a blanket view that everything
on the site is, as of a certain moment, licensed under GPLv3
(note you don't have to change file headers to achieve this,
the file headers have no particular legal significance in
any case).
I'
Robert Dewar wrote:
One could of course just take a blanket view that everything
on the site is, as of a certain moment, licensed under GPLv3
(note you don't have to change file headers to achieve this,
the file headers have no particular legal significance in
any case).
I'm going to pull a Wik
Robert Dewar wrote:
>One could of course just take a blanket view that everything
>on the site is, as of a certain moment, licensed under GPLv3
>(note you don't have to change file headers to achieve this,
>the file headers have no particular legal significance in
>any case).
According to http://w
>Krzysztof Halasa wrote:
>> Michael Eager <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>> Not until someone updates the txt. Which should happen quickly,
>>> but if someone applies a GPLv3 patch to a previously GPLv2 branch,
>>> the entire branch becomes GPLv3, whether the COPYING file was
>>> updated or not.
Krzysztof Halasa wrote:
Michael Eager <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Not until someone updates the txt. Which should happen quickly,
but if someone applies a GPLv3 patch to a previously GPLv2 branch,
the entire branch becomes GPLv3, whether the COPYING file was
updated or not.
Come on, if the F
Michael Eager <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Not until someone updates the txt. Which should happen quickly,
> but if someone applies a GPLv3 patch to a previously GPLv2 branch,
> the entire branch becomes GPLv3, whether the COPYING file was
> updated or not.
Come on, if the FSF (the copyright ho
Krzysztof Halasa wrote:
Michael Eager <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Unfortunately, as I understand it, this is not the case. If you
apply a GPLv3 patch to a previously GPLv2 branch after August 1, then
this entire branch, and all files in it, magically and silently
becomes GPLv3. (This is unles
Michael Eager <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Unfortunately, as I understand it, this is not the case. If you
> apply a GPLv3 patch to a previously GPLv2 branch after August 1, then
> this entire branch, and all files in it, magically and silently
> becomes GPLv3. (This is unless FSF agrees with M
Robert Dewar wrote:
Michael Eager wrote:
Unfortunately, as I understand it, this is not the case. If you
apply a GPLv3 patch to a previously GPLv2 branch after August 1, then
this entire branch, and all files in it, magically and silently
becomes GPLv3. (This is unless FSF agrees with Mark's
Michael Eager wrote:
Unfortunately, as I understand it, this is not the case. If you
apply a GPLv3 patch to a previously GPLv2 branch after August 1, then
this entire branch, and all files in it, magically and silently
becomes GPLv3. (This is unless FSF agrees with Mark's proposal
to dual lice
Richard Kenner wrote:
One could of course just take a blanket view that everything on the
site is, as of a certain moment, licensed under GPLv3 (note you
don't have to change file headers to achieve this, the file headers
have no particular legal significance in any case).
Given the July 31 "de
Rob Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> So, could there be a simultaneous release of gcc under GPLv2 and GPLv3,
> identical in all respects except for the license?
How could that be useful? That v2(+) version would already be v3
if the user wanted so (due to the "or later" clause).
Use any licen
> One could of course just take a blanket view that everything on the
> site is, as of a certain moment, licensed under GPLv3 (note you
> don't have to change file headers to achieve this, the file headers
> have no particular legal significance in any case).
Given the July 31 "deadline", that's e
Michael Eager wrote:
Saying that license is an interoperability issue doesn't make it one.
No, saying that is not what makes it so, that's true.
However, the fact is that licensing *is* an interoperability issue,
since it has to do with what units can be mixed together in a
particular situati
Geoffrey Keating wrote:
Speaking as an individual developer who nonetheless needs to follow
his company's policies on licensing, I need it to be *absolutely
clear* whether a piece of software can be used under GPLv2 or not.
If there's a situation where 'silent' license upgrades can occur,
where
On Fri, Jul 13, 2007 at 08:54:17AM -0700, Michael Eager wrote:
> Robert Dewar wrote:
> >Nicholas Nethercote wrote:
> >
> >>One way to view it: the license is a feature. Therefore changing the
> >>license is changing a feature. Therefore what was going to be 4.2.2
> >>should become 4.3.0.
> >
>
As a (non-developer) user, may I humbly submit a slightly different view:
The change of license is an Event, which needs to be marked in concrete by
a version number change. All future mainline development will be under the
GPLv3. However, there are many people who (due to legal or commercial
pres
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Jul 13, 2007, Robert Dewar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
See, I'm not diminishing the importance of licensing issues, I'm just
saying it's legally irresponsible to sit back and *not* even watch
what's going on in the development of the license
Everybody's been watching.
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Jul 13, 2007, Nicholas Nethercote <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
One way to view it: the license is a feature. Therefore changing the
license is changing a feature.
Every release of GCC in the past decade (and then some) was GPLv2+.
GPLv3 has always been one of the opt
Robert Dewar wrote:
Nicholas Nethercote wrote:
One way to view it: the license is a feature. Therefore changing the
license is changing a feature. Therefore what was going to be 4.2.2
should become 4.3.0.
I certainly agree that the license is a feature, and a pretty
important one for many
Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Jul 13, 2007, Nicholas Nethercote <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > One way to view it: the license is a feature. Therefore changing the
> > license is changing a feature.
>
> Every release of GCC in the past decade (and then some) was GPLv2+.
>
Russ Allbery schrieb:
Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
How about, after the 4.2.1 release, switch the branch to GPLv3 and then
release 4.2.3, without any functional changes, under GPLv3?
The skipped minor version number (to a .3, no less) and the quick
succession of releases would
Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> How about, after the 4.2.1 release, switch the branch to GPLv3 and then
> release 4.2.3, without any functional changes, under GPLv3?
> The skipped minor version number (to a .3, no less) and the quick
> succession of releases would probably hint at t
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Jul 13, 2007, Robert Dewar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
So you typically would wait till the license change was definite.
It seems to me that it would be saner to not only keep up with the
developments of the license, but also get one's major customers awar
On Jul 13, 2007, Robert Dewar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This means getting lawyers involved, and for sure you don't want
> them wasting time tracking an 18 month period in which the license
> keeps changing.
Yet somehow a number of large stakeholders not only tracked the
license development ov
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
Anyone who had their heads in the sand for the past 18 months when
GPLv3 was being publicly discussed and developed, or wasn't at the GCC
Summit last year when I mentioned that the FSF would most certainly
want to upgrade the license of every project whose copyright it hel
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
One way to view it: the license is a feature. Therefore changing the
license is changing a feature.
Every release of GCC in the past decade (and then some) was GPLv2+.
GPLv3 has always been one of the options.
Anyone who had their heads in the san
On Jul 13, 2007, Nicholas Nethercote <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> One way to view it: the license is a feature. Therefore changing the
> license is changing a feature.
Every release of GCC in the past decade (and then some) was GPLv2+.
GPLv3 has always been one of the options.
Anyone who had t
1 - 100 of 171 matches
Mail list logo
