On Thu, 4 Jan 2007 12:00:51 +0100 Paul de Vrieze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| Except that a GPL-RENEW tag would be transparent over newer GPL
| releases too.
But it won't be transparent for end users, who will have to accept
weird non-licences in ACCEPT_LICENCES.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
Mail
On Thu, 4 Jan 2007 12:00:51 +0100
Paul de Vrieze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thursday 04 January 2007 11:42, Kevin F. Quinn wrote:
> > On Wed, 3 Jan 2007 10:18:51 +0100
> >
> > Paul de Vrieze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I know that I'm a bit late on this, but to me the "version 2 or
> > >
On Thursday 04 January 2007 11:42, Kevin F. Quinn wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Jan 2007 10:18:51 +0100
>
> Paul de Vrieze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I know that I'm a bit late on this, but to me the "version 2 or
> > later" is a license by itself. Let's call it GPL-RENEW and let the
> > file have content
On Wed, 3 Jan 2007 10:18:51 +0100
Paul de Vrieze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I know that I'm a bit late on this, but to me the "version 2 or
> later" is a license by itself. Let's call it GPL-RENEW and let the
> file have contents like:
> "This package is licensed with the version x or later clau
On Sun, 24 Dec 2006 18:05:48 +
Stephen Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 21:56:54 +0100
> "Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > GPL-2:
> > Note: this license states that the software is licensed under GNU
> > General Public License version 2, and
On Friday 22 December 2006 22:53, Yuri Vasilevski wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 21:56:54 +0100
>
> "Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > At the moment we represent the software we consider under GNU General
> > Public License, version 2 of the license, but we cannot be s
On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 21:56:54 +0100
"Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> GPL-2:
> Note: this license states that the software is licensed under GNU
> General Public License version 2, and you might not be able to
> consider it licensed under any later version.
>
> GPL-2+:
> Not
Yuri Vasilevski wrote:
[...]
> But at the benefit of having less confusion
> for users about "What the heck is a GPL-2+?" for at last the same period
> of time.
[...]
> So users will have to check what's the
> meaning of that + at the end of GPL-2+, so I think it'll create much
> more confusion tha
On Sat, Dec 23, 2006 at 12:10:44AM +0100, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
> On Friday 22 December 2006 23:43, Alec Warner wrote:
> > Say I approve only GPL-3 packages (cause' I hate patents, and I dislike
> > having a working system too!). This would encompass anything strictly
> > GPL-3 and also
On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 23:31:04 +0100
"Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Friday 22 December 2006 22:53, Yuri Vasilevski wrote:
> > While for the ones that support v2 or later (this is actually a
> > special case of multiple licensing) we do:
> >
> > LICENSE="GPL-2 GPL-3"
> >
On Friday 22 December 2006 23:43, Alec Warner wrote:
> Say I approve only GPL-3 packages (cause' I hate patents, and I dislike
> having a working system too!). This would encompass anything strictly
> GPL-3 and also anything GPL-2+ (which would then be under 3 at my option
> in this case).
Not rea
Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
On Friday 22 December 2006 22:53, Yuri Vasilevski wrote:
While for the ones that support v2 or later (this is actually a special
case of multiple licensing) we do:
LICENSE="GPL-2 GPL-3"
when it becomes available?
There is one problem at least for this: to apply
On Friday 22 December 2006 22:53, Yuri Vasilevski wrote:
> While for the ones that support v2 or later (this is actually a special
> case of multiple licensing) we do:
>
> LICENSE="GPL-2 GPL-3"
>
> when it becomes available?
There is one problem at least for this: to apply this method you'd have to
On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 17:06:32 -0500
Alec Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yuri Vasilevski wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 21:56:54 +0100
> > "Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> At the moment we represent the software we consider under GNU
> >> General Pub
Yuri Vasilevski wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 21:56:54 +0100
"Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
At the moment we represent the software we consider under GNU General
Public License, version 2 of the license, but we cannot be sure it's
alright to license it to "any later ve
Hi,
On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 21:56:54 +0100
"Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At the moment we represent the software we consider under GNU General
> Public License, version 2 of the license, but we cannot be sure it's
> alright to license it to "any later version". Linux kernel
At the moment we represent the software we consider under GNU General Public
License, version 2 of the license, but we cannot be sure it's alright to
license it to "any later version". Linux kernel for instance is licensed
_only_ under GPLv2, but not any later version.
What I propose is to copy
17 matches
Mail list logo
