|
»
»
GPLv2 or GPLv2+
|
View:
New views
20 Messages
—
Rating Filter:
Alert me
|
| < Prev | 1 - 2 | Next > |
 |
GPLv2 or GPLv2+
by Debarshi Ray
::
Rate this Message:
Is GNU Arch (ie. tla-1.3.5) licensed under "GPL version 2 only" or
"GPL version 2 or (at your option) any later version" ? The Savannah project page (http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/gnu-arch) mentions "GNU General Public License v2 or later", while the src/COPYING file in the 1.3.5 release tarball mentions "...GNU General Public License, version 2,..." This piece of information is essential for creating a tla Fedora package. Happy hacking. Debarshi -- GPG key ID: 63D4A5A7 Key server: pgp.mit.edu _______________________________________________ Gnu-arch-users mailing list Gnu-arch-users@... http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-arch-users GNU arch home page: http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/gnu-arch/ |
|
|
Re: GPLv2 or GPLv2+
by Alfred M. Szmidt
::
Rate this Message:
Is GNU Arch (ie. tla-1.3.5) licensed under "GPL version 2 only" or
"GPL version 2 or (at your option) any later version" ? The Savannah project page (http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/gnu-arch) mentions "GNU General Public License v2 or later", while the src/COPYING file in the 1.3.5 release tarball mentions "...GNU General Public License, version 2,..." The COPYING file is a copy of the GNU GPL, it doesn't state what the license is of the whole package. You have to look at each file, and not at the actual license terms to see what the actual terms are of the package. _______________________________________________ Gnu-arch-users mailing list Gnu-arch-users@... http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-arch-users GNU arch home page: http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/gnu-arch/ |
|
|
Re: GPLv2 or GPLv2+
by Debarshi Ray
::
Rate this Message:
> The COPYING file is a copy of the GNU GPL, it doesn't state what the
> license is of the whole package. You have to look at each file, and > not at the actual license terms to see what the actual terms are of > the package. Each source file which has a license header asks the reader to refer to the src/COPYING file for the license terms of the package in this case. Happy hacking, Debarshi -- GPG key ID: 63D4A5A7 Key server: pgp.mit.edu _______________________________________________ Gnu-arch-users mailing list Gnu-arch-users@... http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-arch-users GNU arch home page: http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/gnu-arch/ |
|
|
Re: GPLv2 or GPLv2+
by Ludovic Courtès
::
Rate this Message:
Hi,
"Debarshi 'Rishi' Ray" <debarshi.ray@...> writes: > Each source file which has a license header asks the reader to refer > to the src/COPYING file for the license terms of the package in this > case. You're right: these are "non-standard" headers, so we're stuck (i.e., your interpretation that it's "GPLv2-only" sounds right). And since there are several copyright holders (and not the FSF), we're all the more stuck. :-) Thanks, Ludovic. _______________________________________________ Gnu-arch-users mailing list Gnu-arch-users@... http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-arch-users GNU arch home page: http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/gnu-arch/ |
|
|
|
|
|
Re: GPLv2 or GPLv2+
by Alfred M. Szmidt
::
Rate this Message:
> The COPYING file is a copy of the GNU GPL, it doesn't state what
> the license is of the whole package. You have to look at each > file, and not at the actual license terms to see what the actual > terms are of the package. Each source file which has a license header asks the reader to refer to the src/COPYING file for the license terms of the package in this case. Then Tom needs a good spanking for obfuscating things for no peculiar reson. _______________________________________________ Gnu-arch-users mailing list Gnu-arch-users@... http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-arch-users GNU arch home page: http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/gnu-arch/ |
|
|
Re: GPLv2 or GPLv2+
by Thomas Lord
::
Rate this Message:
Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
> Then Tom needs a good spanking for obfuscating things for no peculiar > reson. > > As much as I might enjoy that sort of thing (and don't we all, really) I'm not so sure I agree. I put in a "reasonable best effort" on such things under the circumstances, but it would have cost (more) real money to keep all of those things in perfect order. (No, I don't take you to be harshly scolding me in the slightest. I'm not trying to be defensive about the matter at all. I'm just saying that there's only so much one can do and perfecting all the notices would have taken quite a lot more hours that would have had to have been paid for *somehow*. It didn't seem an especially important priority since, had larger-scale funding happened at all, it would have been easy to clean up pretty quick. Sorry for the mess but, whatcha gonna do?) -t _______________________________________________ Gnu-arch-users mailing list Gnu-arch-users@... http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-arch-users GNU arch home page: http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/gnu-arch/ |
|
|
Re: GPLv2 or GPLv2+
by Stephen J. Turnbull
::
Rate this Message:
Thomas Lord writes:
> Sorry for the mess but, whatcha gonna do? Is there a mess? Legally, it's perfectly clear that it's GPLv2-only. The only legal problem is that if a file gets distributed separately from the COPYING file, the recipient has no way of knowing her GPL rights, except to ask the author or a distributor. Big deal, you like getting mail about your code, no? :-) It's only a real problem if you want to delegate decisions about the terms of your license to the FSF. But I thought it was not your intent to do so at that time. _______________________________________________ Gnu-arch-users mailing list Gnu-arch-users@... http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-arch-users GNU arch home page: http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/gnu-arch/ |
|
|
Re: GPLv2 or GPLv2+
by Miles Bader-4
::
Rate this Message:
"Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen@...> writes:
> > Sorry for the mess but, whatcha gonna do? > > Is there a mess? Legally, it's perfectly clear that it's GPLv2-only. The issue, AFAICS is simply that some people actually _intend_ to follow "FSF practice" and make their files GPLVx+, but don't realize they need to say this. So it would generally help to reduce confusion to use an explicit statement in each file, even in case where it's technically redundant. -Miles -- "I distrust a research person who is always obviously busy on a task." --Robert Frosch, VP, GM Research _______________________________________________ Gnu-arch-users mailing list Gnu-arch-users@... http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-arch-users GNU arch home page: http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/gnu-arch/ |
|
|
Re: Re: GPLv2 or GPLv2+
by Thomas Lord
::
Rate this Message:
Miles Bader wrote:
> "Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen@...> writes: > >> > Sorry for the mess but, whatcha gonna do? >> >> Is there a mess? Legally, it's perfectly clear that it's GPLv2-only. >> > > The issue, AFAICS is simply that some people actually _intend_ to follow > "FSF practice" and make their files GPLVx+, but don't realize they need > to say this. So it would generally help to reduce confusion to use an > explicit statement in each file, even in case where it's technically > redundant. > > -Miles > > The mess from my part is just paperwork. I'm happy with any of /my/ code under v2 or v3 (and, indeed, slightly prefer v3 for reasons not important here). So flip any files you like *EXCEPT DON'T* unless you sort out who the copyright-significant contributors are to the various files and get them to agree to the change too -- which is, what I gather, Andy is reporting that the FSF is doing. It's a slight mess. A bunch of tedious shuffling and permissions gathering that, ideally, ought not to have been an issue at this late date. (I still think it's a pretty *minor* mess but, it is a mess.) -t _______________________________________________ Gnu-arch-users mailing list Gnu-arch-users@... http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-arch-users GNU arch home page: http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/gnu-arch/ |
|
|
Re: GPLv2 or GPLv2+
by Alfred M. Szmidt
::
Rate this Message:
I put in a "reasonable best effort" on such things under the
circumstances, but it would have cost (more) real money to keep all of those things in perfect order. Collecting copyright assignments is trivial business, and doesn't require any effort at all. Infact, it is less effort than not collecting them, since if you do not, you end up with things like this. No, I don't take you to be harshly scolding me in the slightest. I'm not trying to be defensive about the matter at all. Wasn't scolding you harshly or otherwise really... I'm just saying that there's only so much one can do and perfecting all the notices would have taken quite a lot more hours that would have had to have been paid for *somehow*. It didn't seem an especially important priority since, had larger-scale funding happened at all, it would have been easy to clean up pretty quick. Sorry for the mess but, whatcha gonna do?) Not create it to begin with, always easier to clean up a mess that didn't exist. _______________________________________________ Gnu-arch-users mailing list Gnu-arch-users@... http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-arch-users GNU arch home page: http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/gnu-arch/ |
|
|
Re: GPLv2 or GPLv2+
by Alfred M. Szmidt
::
Rate this Message:
It's only a real problem if you want to delegate decisions about
the terms of your license to the FSF. But I thought it was not your intent to do so at that time. One could have assigned the copyright to Tom. _______________________________________________ Gnu-arch-users mailing list Gnu-arch-users@... http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-arch-users GNU arch home page: http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/gnu-arch/ |
|
|
Re: GPLv2 or GPLv2+
by Thomas Lord
::
Rate this Message:
Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
> Collecting copyright assignments is trivial business, Unfortunately, it is not. The basic mechanics of it are trivial, sure: collect autographs. The details matter a lot though. Recall that it wouldn't have been simply the FSF office doing this, the way they do for GCC: it would have been *me* collecting those papers. So, I'd have been party to all those contracts. I might have been liable if someone lied or got wrong their rights to assign work to me. For my protection I would have to pay rent to securely archive those assignments (forever, essentially). Assignments aren't a game. They have to be handled with great care and, even if the mechanics of them are simple, that "great care" is expensive. -t _______________________________________________ Gnu-arch-users mailing list Gnu-arch-users@... http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-arch-users GNU arch home page: http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/gnu-arch/ |
|
|
Re: GPLv2 or GPLv2+
by Stephen J. Turnbull
::
Rate this Message:
Miles Bader writes:
> "Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen@...> writes: > > > Sorry for the mess but, whatcha gonna do? > > > > Is there a mess? Legally, it's perfectly clear that it's GPLv2-only. > > The issue, AFAICS is simply that some people actually _intend_ to follow > "FSF practice" and make their files GPLVx+, but don't realize they need > to say this. Yeah, and that's at least in part due to including all kinds of non-license text in the license text. Eg, people regularly point out that COPYING includes the "or later" clause, and they think it's part of the copyleft terms that have to be imposed on redistributions. > So it would generally help to reduce confusion to use an explicit > statement in each file, even in case where it's technically > redundant. What would really reduce confusion is to move everything that's not actually part of the license terms out of the license document[1], but that's not going to happen, so you're right: precise permissions statements clarifying the applicable versions of the GPL are very helpful. Footnotes: [1] Equally effective would be to divide COPYING into two parts, the first part being labelled "The Purpose of the GNU GPL", and the second being labelled "The GNU General Public License", and containing only the legally enforceable terms. But this isn't going to happen either. _______________________________________________ Gnu-arch-users mailing list Gnu-arch-users@... http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-arch-users GNU arch home page: http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/gnu-arch/ |
|
|
Re: GPLv2 or GPLv2+
by Andy Tai
::
Rate this Message:
On Nov 16, 2007 2:11 PM, Alfred M. Szmidt <ams@...> wrote:
Alfred, this is not a simple matter. Since written forms must be transferred and signed, for people employed this often involves seeking approval and that can take months. _______________________________________________ Gnu-arch-users mailing list Gnu-arch-users@... http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-arch-users GNU arch home page: http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/gnu-arch/ |
|
|
Re: GPLv2 or GPLv2+
by Miles Bader-2
::
Rate this Message:
"Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen@...> writes:
> [1] Equally effective would be to divide COPYING into two parts, the > first part being labelled "The Purpose of the GNU GPL", and the second > being labelled "The GNU General Public License", and containing only > the legally enforceable terms. But this isn't going to happen either. Why not? Have you asked? -Miles -- `To alcohol! The cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems' --Homer J. Simpson _______________________________________________ Gnu-arch-users mailing list Gnu-arch-users@... http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-arch-users GNU arch home page: http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/gnu-arch/ |
|
|
Re: GPLv2 or GPLv2+
by Stephen J. Turnbull
::
Rate this Message:
Miles Bader writes:
> "Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen@...> writes: > > [1] Equally effective would be to divide COPYING into two parts, the > > first part being labelled "The Purpose of the GNU GPL", and the second > > being labelled "The GNU General Public License", and containing only > > the legally enforceable terms. But this isn't going to happen either. > > Why not? Have you asked? I've seen the question about separating out the non-license commentary posed (on the FSB mailing list IIRC) and answered by Richard Stallman. Richard considers the preamble and other commentary about the philosophy of the GPL to be an essential part of the license. I don't think he would accept a GPL stripped of its advocacy role, even if aggregated into a COPYING file that also contained an appropriate polemic. I mean, really, can you see Richard adopting language like that in Larry Rosen's Open Software License or a Creative Commons ShareAlike License for the GPLv4? :-) _______________________________________________ Gnu-arch-users mailing list Gnu-arch-users@... http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-arch-users GNU arch home page: http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/gnu-arch/ |
|
|
Re: Re: GPLv2 or GPLv2+
by Thomas Lord
::
Rate this Message:
Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> I've seen the question about separating out the non-license commentary > posed (on the FSB mailing list IIRC) and answered by Richard Stallman. > Richard considers the preamble and other commentary about the > philosophy of the GPL to be an essential part of the license. I don't > think he would accept a GPL stripped of its advocacy role, even if > aggregated into a COPYING file that also contained an appropriate > polemic. > I think that's a misreading. I think there's actually a theory of jurisprudence behind the inclusion of the preamble (and a good theory, at that). Basically, a clear *intent* is essential to judging a contract in all but the very least ambiguous aspects. This contract has to be interpreted across a lot of jurisdictions. What you call the "polemic" is pretty vital. -t > I mean, really, can you see Richard adopting language like that in > Larry Rosen's Open Software License or a Creative Commons ShareAlike > License for the GPLv4? :-) > > > _______________________________________________ > Gnu-arch-users mailing list > Gnu-arch-users@... > http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-arch-users > > GNU arch home page: > http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/gnu-arch/ > > _______________________________________________ Gnu-arch-users mailing list Gnu-arch-users@... http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-arch-users GNU arch home page: http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/gnu-arch/ |
|
|
Re: Re: GPLv2 or GPLv2+
by Stephen J. Turnbull-2
::
Rate this Message:
Thomas Lord writes:
> Stephen J. Turnbull wrote: > > I've seen the question about separating out the non-license commentary > > posed (on the FSB mailing list IIRC) and answered by Richard Stallman. > > Richard considers the preamble and other commentary about the > > philosophy of the GPL to be an essential part of the license. I don't > > think he would accept a GPL stripped of its advocacy role, even if > > aggregated into a COPYING file that also contained an appropriate > > polemic. > > > > > I think that's a misreading. > > I think there's actually a theory of jurisprudence behind the inclusion of > the preamble (and a good theory, at that). I don't think so. There's no question that intent matters. However, the intent that matters is that of the licensor and the licensee. Thus we have loadable binary modules in Linux, despite the fact that the author of the license under which Linux is distributed believes that they are not allowed under the GPL. > Basically, a clear *intent* is essential to judging a contract in > all but the very least ambiguous aspects. This contract has to be > interpreted across a lot of jurisdictions. What you call the > "polemic" is pretty vital. Not really. In the context of enforcing the GPL, the preamble says that the intent of the restrictions in the license is _______________________________________________ Gnu-arch-users mailing list Gnu-arch-users@... http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-arch-users GNU arch home page: http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/gnu-arch/ |
|
|
Re: Re: GPLv2 or GPLv2+
by Stephen J. Turnbull
::
Rate this Message:
Oops, sorry about the premature send.
Thomas Lord writes: > Stephen J. Turnbull wrote: > > I've seen the question about separating out the non-license commentary > > posed (on the FSB mailing list IIRC) and answered by Richard Stallman. > > Richard considers the preamble and other commentary about the > > philosophy of the GPL to be an essential part of the license. I don't > > think he would accept a GPL stripped of its advocacy role, even if > > aggregated into a COPYING file that also contained an appropriate > > polemic. > > I think that's a misreading. > > I think there's actually a theory of jurisprudence behind the inclusion of > the preamble (and a good theory, at that). I don't think so. There's no question that intent matters. However, the intent that matters is that of the licensor and the licensee, not the author of the license. Thus we have loadable binary modules in Linux, despite the fact that the author of the license under which Linux is distributed believes that they are not allowed under the GPL. > Basically, a clear *intent* is essential to judging a contract in > all but the very least ambiguous aspects. This contract has to be > interpreted across a lot of jurisdictions. What you call the > "polemic" is pretty vital. Not really. In the context of enforcing the GPL, the preamble says that the intent of the restrictions in the license is to ensure software freedom to users of the covered software. But what is that? Well, those are the activities permitted by the license. The preamble doesn't help at all in deciding whether a particular activity is permitted or not. It's clear that the specific terms of the GPL are in support of the users' "freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for this service if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it in new free programs; and that you know you can do these things," as described in the preamble. But conversely, it's hard to see how those general goals determine the specific terms. Eg, the GPL says: "keep intact the notices that refer to this license". Now, most FSF-derived programs have a notice like XEmacs is free software. You may copy, modify, and redistribute it under the GPLv2. You can get a copy of the GPLv2 from the FSF in Cambridge MA. If I remove the "XEmacs is free software" portion, have I mutilated the notice? How about updating the FSF's address? How does the preamble help me to answer those questions? _______________________________________________ Gnu-arch-users mailing list Gnu-arch-users@... http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-arch-users GNU arch home page: http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/gnu-arch/ |
| < Prev | 1 - 2 | Next > |
| Free embeddable forum powered by Nabble | Forum Help |
