(3) all advertising* materials mentioning features or use of this software display the following
* acknowledgement: ``This product includes software developed by the * Computer Systems Laboratory at the University of Utah.''
I mentioned the hosting on Savannah simply to address that it was a concern; I was and am fully aware we could move if needed.
What we need to do (WRT to "or later" clause): 1. Remove the "or later clause" and get copyright holders permission to do so (and then go find new hosting since we'll have to leave Savannah unless they are willing to make an exception for us)As I say, this is not necessary. There is an advantage to *adding* "or any later version", if we can get it on every contribution, because thenwe could specify GPLv3. But there is no advantage to *removing* it.
I'll address this in a moment. I also decided to talk with Beuc, Savannah's lead administrator for a clarification on the current rules. Thomas is right in stating that we don't have a rule directly preventing GPLv2-only packages (that was a mistake I made). I've attached the transcript from #savannah. I also spoke about the current "or later version" clause and what it means for Mach.
[2007-06-16 18::03:24] Beuc: The approval was not as formaly defined as it is today. I suggest not wasting time with it unless I'm missing something. What's the project? Ê [2007-06-16 18::03:33] NCommander: GNU Hurd Ê [2007-06-16 18::04:26] Beuc: If it's GNU I think it's best discussed with the maintainers and RMS. Ê [2007-06-16 18::05:12] NCommander: (I'm having an arguement with someone on the project mailing lists in regards to licensing, and he states that nowhere does Savannah state that won't host a GPLv2 Only projects, only that we say its "problematic") Ê [2007-06-16 18::06:19] Beuc: Savannah just follows parts the GNU guidelines. If it's a GNU project that a GNU problem before a Savannah hosting problem. Ê [2007-06-16 18::06:38] NCommander: So wait, GNU guidelines states the "or any later version" rule? Ê [2007-06-16 18::07:25] Beuc: Probably. The "GPLv2-only" rule at Savannah was suggested by RMS a couple years ago. Ê [2007-06-16 18::08:12] NCommander: Now, for clarification sake, we don't host GPL2-only projects anymore (expect as it seems, they were grandfathered in before that rule came into effect) Ê [2007-06-16 18::10:46] Beuc: Indeed. If however a GNU project were to be released under GPLv2-only for a reason or another, we'd probably make an exception for the project, because we're the GNU hosting platform and we help providing GNU with what they need. Of course a GPLv2-only project is contrary to the goal of the GNU project which want to advance to GPLv3 and better protect our freedoms, so that's not very likely to happen, but you get the point. Ê [2007-06-16 18::11:59] NCommander: Now, I've got a legal question for you Ê [2007-06-16 18::12:03] Beuc: If you think they're a problem with a GNU project, in theory you check with the maintainers, and RMS for last resort. However I'm not sure it's worth spending time on it. Ê [2007-06-16 18::13:03] NCommander: Ouch Ê [2007-06-16 18::14:38] Beuc: I'd say the combination of Mach with the Linux drivers needs to be GPLv2. Mach w/o the drivers can be distributed under v2 or later. Ê [2007-06-16 18::15:03] NCommander: That's what I thought Ê [2007-06-16 18::16:08] Beuc: Nothing prevents you from dual licensing a contribution to Savane under the Mozilla license + the GNU GPL - the combination with Savane will be GNU GPL only though. You still could take the contribution independently under the MPL. Ê [2007-06-16 18::16:37] NCommander: I think you just caused my brain to go boom Ê [2007-06-16 18::16:49] Beuc: sorry Ê [2007-06-16 18::17:41] NCommander: Its ok Ê [2007-06-16 18::18:19] Beuc: y Ê [2007-06-16 18::18:30] NCommander: is that short for why or yes Ê [2007-06-16 18::18:56] Beuc: When I type 'yes' in a terminal, I get 'y' :) Ê [2007-06-16 18::19:13] NCommander: Go geek humor Ê [2007-06-16 18::23:52] Beuc: That was the final question? Ê [2007-06-16 18::25:24] NCommander: No the "old BSD one"
I have to go, but I wanted to post this now, and I'll address more points once I get a moment
Michael On Jun 16, 2007, at 5:29 PM, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
On Sat, 2007-06-16 at 14:52 -0400, Michael Casadevall wrote:* Permission to use, copy, modify and distribute this software and its * documentation is hereby granted, provided that both the copyright * notice and this permission notice appear in all copies of the * software, derivative works or modified versions, and any portions * thereof, and that both notices appear in supporting documentation.Sorry, I took your word for it when I sholudn't have. Nothing here, which you attribute to UU, contains the noxious advertising clause. I do recall that such files did once exist, but this notice is not it. Notice, you see, that it does not refer to advertising. If there are such notices, can you please post one? I can ask Utah about it, and my guess is that this is all old enough that they won't care at all, and will happily follow BSD's example and allow its removal. Thomas
PGP.sig
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Bug-hurd mailing list Bug-hurd@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-hurd
