On Fri, Jul 13, 2007 at 07:04:20AM +0200, Harald van Dijk wrote:
> > >Correct, it does, just like it permits C applications with
> > >GPL-incompatible licenses to link with GPL libraries, so long as this
> > >linking is done by the end user and the application is not distributed
> > >in its linked f
On Friday 13 July 2007, Jeroen Roovers wrote:
> Marius Mauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Well, documention won't help to resolve the legal questions about this
> > (what exactly is necessary to assign copyright from a person to the
> > foundation), and that's the main problem IMO.
>
> I never re
> >Correct, it does, just like it permits C applications with
> >GPL-incompatible licenses to link with GPL libraries, so long as this
> >linking is done by the end user and the application is not distributed
> >in its linked form. See for example the NVidia kernel module, or for a
> >somewhat diff
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 05:55:26 +0200
Marius Mauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well, documention won't help to resolve the legal questions about this
> (what exactly is necessary to assign copyright from a person to the
> foundation), and that's the main problem IMO.
I never realised this was contr
Add usual IANAL disclaimer here. All of what I say below is just a
recall of what I remember from discussions that happened a few years
ago.
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 04:53:10 +0200
Jeroen Roovers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> To be exact, by submitting an ebuild, you actively surrender the
> copyright
On Thursday 12 July 2007, Jeroen Roovers wrote:
>
before people start responding with their opinions, take this to the trustees
list. that list is for all Gentoo licensing/copyright/blah-blah-boring-crap.
-mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 15:14:38 -0400
Seemant Kulleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The question there, I suppose, is: do we *require* contributors to
> license ebuilds as GPL-2?
The Gentoo Project requires contributors to surrender the copyright to
the Gentoo Foundation. The Foundation sets the lice
On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 22:11:36 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 17:06:05 -0400
> Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > third parties are free to license however they like.
>
> Could the Foundation make a formal statement to that effect, and could
> wolf
On Thursday 12 July 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > third parties are free to license however they like.
>
> Could the Foundation make a formal statement to that effect, and could
> wolf31o2 retract his claim that all ebuilds are derived works of
> skel.
On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 17:06:05 -0400
Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> third parties are free to license however they like.
Could the Foundation make a formal statement to that effect, and could
wolf31o2 retract his claim that all ebuilds are derived works of
skel.ebuild?
--
Ciaran McCre
On Thursday 12 July 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 16:10:48 -0400
>
> Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Thursday 12 July 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > > Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > Which feelings are clearly wrong, for anyone with any de
On Thu, Jul 12, 2007 at 11:16:46PM +0300, Petteri Räty wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh kirjoitti:
> >
> > As I understand it, merely using an eclass doesn't force GPL-2 on an
> > ebuild because there's no linkage involved.
> >
>
> This argument would make it possible to write apps using GPL-2 python
>
On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 16:10:48 -0400
Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thursday 12 July 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > Which feelings are clearly wrong, for anyone with any degree of
> > > > familiarity with ebuilds.
> > >
> > > perhaps
Ciaran McCreesh kirjoitti:
>
> As I understand it, merely using an eclass doesn't force GPL-2 on an
> ebuild because there's no linkage involved.
>
This argument would make it possible to write apps using GPL-2 python
libraries in !GPL-2 licenses so I don't think it goes that way but I am
no law
On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 12:58:49 -0700
Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > It would be an interesting question, though, to prove that someone
> > wrote a from-scratch ebuild via looking only at the documentation,
> > and without basing any parts off of already existing ebuilds in the
> > tr
On Thursday 12 July 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Which feelings are clearly wrong, for anyone with any degree of
> > > familiarity with ebuilds.
> >
> > perhaps, but in the larger scheme of things, irrelevant
>
> Unless there are third party reposit
On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 21:48:05 +0200
"Wulf C. Krueger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Seriously, guys...
>
> *Did* some Gentoo dev commit an ebuild licenced under GPL-3?
> *Did* some user attach an ebuild licenced under GPL-3 to a bug?
There are third party repositories out there with from-scratch e
On Thu, 2007-07-12 at 15:14 -0400, Seemant Kulleen wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-07-12 at 20:07 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>
> > Unless there are third party repositories shipping their own
> > from-scratch ebuilds... In which case, afaics there's nothing to stop
> > *them* from going GPL-3 if they thi
On Thursday, 12. July 2007 21:14:38 Seemant Kulleen wrote:
> It would be an interesting question, though, to prove that someone
> wrote a from-scratch ebuild via looking only at the documentation, and
> without basing any parts off of already existing ebuilds in the tree,
> no?
How many angels can
On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 15:14:38 -0400
Seemant Kulleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What's the case here? Third-party ebuilds being contributed into the
> tree via bugzilla and other means? Or third-party ebuilds from joe
> shmoe off www.joeshmoesebuilds.com?
>
> The second case is meaningless to Ge
On Thu, 2007-07-12 at 20:07 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Unless there are third party repositories shipping their own
> from-scratch ebuilds... In which case, afaics there's nothing to stop
> *them* from going GPL-3 if they think there's a reason to do so. Unless
> the Foundation somehow claims
On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 15:00:14 -0400
Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Which feelings are clearly wrong, for anyone with any degree of
> > familiarity with ebuilds.
>
> perhaps, but in the larger scheme of things, irrelevant
Unless there are third party repositories shipping their own
f
On Thursday 12 July 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Thu, 2007-07-12 at 10:18 +0100, Steve Long wrote:
> > > Or is it `acceptable' for me to put GPLv3 on, say, an ebuild I
> > > wrote from scratch?
> >
> > The point is that we don't feel that you *ca
On Thu, Jul 12, 2007 at 10:18:13AM +0100, Steve Long wrote:
> Greg KH wrote:
> > The GPLv2 is all about distribution, not use cases, so yes, this is the
> > case and is perfictly legal with GPLv2 (even the FSF explicitly told
> > Tivo that what they were doing was legal and acceptable.)
> >
> Well
On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 11:24:25 -0700
Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-07-12 at 10:18 +0100, Steve Long wrote:
> > Or is it `acceptable' for me to put GPLv3 on, say, an ebuild I
> > wrote from scratch?
>
> The point is that we don't feel that you *can* write an ebuild "from
On Thu, 2007-07-12 at 10:18 +0100, Steve Long wrote:
> Or is it `acceptable' for me to put GPLv3 on, say, an ebuild I wrote from
> scratch?
The point is that we don't feel that you *can* write an ebuild "from
scratch" since it will require certain components, which we feel require
you to base your
Greg KH wrote:
> The GPLv2 is all about distribution, not use cases, so yes, this is the
> case and is perfictly legal with GPLv2 (even the FSF explicitly told
> Tivo that what they were doing was legal and acceptable.)
>
Well legal, maybe, ie acceptable under the terms.
> So, what is the problem
Dominique Michel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted
[EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Mon, 09 Jul 2007
21:37:52 +0200:
> So in fact, it doesn't matter in regard of tivoization if the tre is
> under v2 or v3. I am not a layer, but I will be very surprised if I am
> wrong on that point.
Agreed. Tivo
> Thus the questions of whether many/most individual ebuilds /could/ be
> copyrighted or if so whether it's worth doing so. Certainly, it's the
> tree that contains the license, not the individual ebuilds, etc, which
> give the copyright statement but little more. Gentoo policy would seem
>
Jeroen Roovers kirjoitti:
> On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 10:31:23 +0100
> Steve Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> IMO though, Gentoo is effectively already under GPL3 in that, apart
>> from portage and python, all the core software is GNU. It'd be pretty
>> difficult for instance, to run any ebuild with
On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 10:31:23 +0100
Steve Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> IMO though, Gentoo is effectively already under GPL3 in that, apart
> from portage and python, all the core software is GNU. It'd be pretty
> difficult for instance, to run any ebuild without BASH.
It's not a matter of opi
Steve Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted [EMAIL PROTECTED],
excerpted below, on Mon, 09 Jul 2007 10:31:23 +0100:
> Duncan wrote:
>> Thus the questions of whether many/most individual ebuilds /could/ be
>> copyrighted or if so whether it's worth doing so. [] Gentoo policy
>> would seem to be, then,
Duncan wrote:
> Thus the questions of whether many/most individual ebuilds /could/ be
> copyrighted or if so whether it's worth doing so. Certainly, it's the
> tree that contains the license, not the individual ebuilds, etc, which
> give the copyright statement but little more. Gentoo policy woul
Richard Freeman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted
[EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Sun, 08 Jul 2007
14:15:43 -0400:
> Seemant Kulleen wrote:
>> If you can really show some way that GPL3 provides a compelling case to
>> move to it, then we can start talking about that.
>>
>>
> I wasn't aware that
Petteri Räty wrote:
> David kirjoitti:
>> Was suggested I make a post on the mailing list in addition to lodging
>> bug https://bugs.gentoo.org/184522
>>
> Don't know why you were suggested it but any way yes everyone should be
> on the lookout for license changes.
>
That's why ;)
--
[EMAIL PRO
35 matches
Mail list logo
