Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Documentation licenses and license_groups

> On Tue, 05 Jan 2010, Vincent Launchbury wrote: [about GPL-1 being non-free] > Looking in section 2b, it mentions that you must "[cause work > containing GPL'd code..] to be licensed at no charge to all third > parties... " (excluding warranty protection). This is most probably > the issue,

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Documentation licenses and license_groups

Jeroen Roovers wrote: > No, it just says most GPL-2 software was released with the "version 2 or > later" clause, as in "This software is released under the GPL version 2 > or later". > > That's a promise that any later version will do for /this/ software, not > in any way a promise that whatever

Re: [gentoo-dev] Non-free software in Gentoo

Greg KH wrote: > And note, _I_ placed those images in the kernel image, after consulting > lawyers about this issue, so it's not like I don't know what I am > talking about here. I'm not questioning whether it's legal to distribute non-free firmware alongside the GPL. I'm merely saying that the fi

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Documentation licenses and license_groups

On Tue, 05 Jan 2010 22:00:57 -0500 Vincent Launchbury wrote: > Duncan wrote: > > Quickly checking wikipedia (without verifying further), I'm probably > > thinking about a different license, but I had it in my head that > > GPLv1 had a "no commercial use" clause (or allowed it), and that is > > wh

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Documentation licenses and license_groups

On Tue, 05 Jan 2010 22:00:57 -0500 Vincent Launchbury wrote: > But isn't this a problem with GPL-2 and 3 also? The term > GPL-compatible is too vague--which version is it referring to? For > example, see http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/ again: > >Please note that GPLv2 is, by itself, n

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Documentation licenses and license_groups

Duncan wrote: > Quickly checking wikipedia (without verifying further), I'm probably > thinking about a different license, but I had it in my head that GPLv1 > had a "no commercial use" clause (or allowed it), and that is why it > was no longer considered free software, as it impinged on the user's

[gentoo-dev] Re: Documentation licenses and license_groups

Ulrich Mueller posted on Tue, 05 Jan 2010 21:31:09 +0100 as excerpted: >> On Tue, 5 Jan 2010, Duncan wrote: > >> [...] and GPL-1 is not considered free software, AFAIK. > > Why would that be? There are fairly small changes from GPL-1 to GPL-2. > The only important one is the addition of the

[gentoo-dev] Re: Documentation licenses and license_groups

> On Tue, 5 Jan 2010, Duncan wrote: > [...] and GPL-1 is not considered free software, AFAIK. Why would that be? There are fairly small changes from GPL-1 to GPL-2. The only important one is the addition of the "Liberty or Death" [1] clause (section 7 of the GPL-2). Ulrich [1]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Documentation licenses and license_groups

> On Tue, 05 Jan 2010, Vincent Launchbury wrote: > Also, I was wondering about LGPL-2 and GPL-1, surely they're > GPL-compatible? The suggested license header in > /usr/portage/licenses/GPL-1 contains "either version 1, or (at your > option) any later version." The LGPL-2 suggests 2 or later a

[gentoo-dev] Re: Documentation licenses and license_groups

Vincent Launchbury posted on Tue, 05 Jan 2010 12:15:10 -0500 as excerpted: > Also, I was wondering about LGPL-2 and GPL-1, surely they're > GPL-compatible? The suggested license header in > /usr/portage/licenses/GPL-1 contains "either version 1, or (at your > option) any later version." The LGPL-2

Re: [gentoo-dev] QA last rites for media-gfx/viewer

On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 01:33:42 +0100 Thilo Bangert wrote: > Jeroen Roovers said: > [snip] > > Feel free to > > CC me on bugs related to this package if you find any more pressing > > issues. > > the standard way of indicating such an interest is to add yourself to > metadata.xml. I've known that

Re: [gentoo-dev] Documentation licenses and license_groups

Ulrich Mueller wrote: > Shouldn't all licenses listed at > (unless marked as non-free) be added to FSF-APPROVED? These would be > the following: Great idea, that would remove a lot of hassle. Also, I was wondering about LGPL-2 and GPL-1, surely they're GPL

[gentoo-dev] Documentation licenses and license_groups

So far, the license_groups entries only contain software licenses, but no documentation licenses like CCPL-Attribution-ShareAlike-3.0 or FDL-1.3. This has the strange consequence that most GNU software cannot be installed if one sets ACCEPT_LICENSE="@FSF-APPROVED @OSI-APPROVED", because the Texinfo

[gentoo-dev] QA last rites for dev-php/roadsend-php

# Diego E. Pettenò (05 Jan 2010) # on behalf of QA team # # Fails to build with recent bigloo (bug #273210, open June # 2009, with patch, no maintainer response). # # Removal on 2010-03-06 dev-php/roadsend-php

[gentoo-dev] QA last rites for app-emulation/uae

# Diego E. Pettenò (05 Jan 2010) # on behalf of QA team # # Fails to build with different configurations (bug #205050, # open January 2008, with patch and bug #262243, open # March 2009). # # Removal on 2010-03-06 app-emulation/uae

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in net-irc/bip: metadata.xml ChangeLog bip-0.8.4.ebuild bip-0.8.1.ebuild

On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 12:17:39 +0100, Christian Faulhammer wrote: > Hi, > > "Alex Legler (a3li)" : > > a3li10/01/05 10:30:43 > > > > Modified: metadata.xml ChangeLog > > Added:bip-0.8.4.ebuild > > Removed: bip-0.8.1.ebuild > > Log: > > Ver

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in net-irc/bip: metadata.xml ChangeLog bip-0.8.4.ebuild bip-0.8.1.ebuild

Hi, "Alex Legler (a3li)" : > a3li10/01/05 10:30:43 > > Modified: metadata.xml ChangeLog > Added:bip-0.8.4.ebuild > Removed: bip-0.8.1.ebuild > Log: > Version bump, add 'noctcp' option to disable automatic CTCP VERSION > replies. Remove ol