Previously Hans Reiser wrote:
> No, it makes it GPL'd with an additional license available if you don't like
> GPL
> and are willing to pay.
If this is the case may I suggest changing the text a bit then? If you release
it under the GPL and add a statement like the one below things will be a lot
> No, it makes it GPL'd with an additional license available if you don't like
> GPL
> and are willing to pay. It is a GPL restriction that one cannot integrate GPL
> software into non-GPL'd software. This makes it more free than just GPL,
> because with the possibility of obtaining a license in
On Fri, Jun 16, 2000 at 02:44:45PM -0700, Andrew Lenharth wrote:
> The whole point of the EXCERPT of the paragraph from the licenses is a
> clarification to an ambiguous phrasing of one of the points in the GPL.
I don't see that it clears up any ambiguities.
> Without further ado, the actual full
This is not legal advice, no attorney-client relationship is established,
etc. etc.
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
To: giulio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CC: debian-legal
Subject: Re: outside USA
Date: 11 Jun 2000 20:14:03 -0400
giulio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Since my works co
On Fri, Jun 16, 2000 at 05:16:11PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
>
> On the other hand, this ambiguity invites flamewars -- and for that
> reason I think the language should be cleaned up.
[Now that I saw the full text...]
The whole thing is poorly worded and does only harm. Again someone messed it
> > > I think I understand what the license is trying to say (that non-GPL
> > > licenses are available from the author, if you don't want to be bound
> > > by the terms of the GPL?), but the way it's currently worded is
> > > incredibly sloppy and fails the DFSG.
> >
> > That blurb simply states
> > Frankly, I think license this only needs a one word change (instead of
> > "non-GPL", make it "non-GPLable" or "incompatible with GPL") to remove
> > all ambiguity. However, we have every right to modify and redistribute
> > the kernel, should we deem it necessary.
On Fri, Jun 16, 2000 at 11:
On Fri, Jun 16, 2000 at 05:00:38PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 16, 2000 at 12:22:26PM -0700, Andrew Lenharth wrote:
> > Then we have an interesting problem. This has already been discussed
> > on the linux kernel list. There consensus was it is consistant and
> > still free. At one poin
Previously Hans Reiser wrote:
> No, it makes it GPL'd with an additional license available if you don't like GPL
> and are willing to pay.
If this is the case may I suggest changing the text a bit then? If you release
it under the GPL and add a statement like the one below things will be a lot
mo
On Fri, Jun 16, 2000 at 12:22:26PM -0700, Andrew Lenharth wrote:
> Then we have an interesting problem. This has already been discussed
> on the linux kernel list. There consensus was it is consistant and
> still free. At one point, either 2.4 or 2.6, this code will be in the
> kernel. Do we move t
> No, it makes it GPL'd with an additional license available if you don't like GPL
> and are willing to pay. It is a GPL restriction that one cannot integrate GPL
> software into non-GPL'd software. This makes it more free than just GPL,
> because with the possibility of obtaining a license in a
On Fri, Jun 16, 2000 at 02:44:45PM -0700, Andrew Lenharth wrote:
> The whole point of the EXCERPT of the paragraph from the licenses is a
> clarification to an ambiguous phrasing of one of the points in the GPL.
I don't see that it clears up any ambiguities.
> Without further ado, the actual ful
This is not legal advice, no attorney-client relationship is established,
etc. etc.
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
>To: giulio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>CC: debian-legal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Re: outside USA
>Date: 11 Jun 2000 20:14:03 -0400
>
>giulio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writ
On Fri, Jun 16, 2000 at 05:16:11PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
>
> On the other hand, this ambiguity invites flamewars -- and for that
> reason I think the language should be cleaned up.
[Now that I saw the full text...]
The whole thing is poorly worded and does only harm. Again someone messed it
On Fri, 16 Jun 2000, Brian Behlendorf wrote:
> > I think I understand what the license is trying to say (that non-GPL
> > licenses are available from the author, if you don't want to be bound
> > by the terms of the GPL?), but the way it's currently worded is
> > incredibly sloppy and fails the DF
> > > I think I understand what the license is trying to say (that non-GPL
> > > licenses are available from the author, if you don't want to be bound
> > > by the terms of the GPL?), but the way it's currently worded is
> > > incredibly sloppy and fails the DFSG.
> >
> > That blurb simply states
On 16 Jun 2000, James Troup wrote:
> > >From the copyright:
> > >| If you wish to integrate it with any other
> > >| software system which is not GPL'd, without integrating it into an
> > >| operating system kernel, then you must obtain an additional license.
> > >This makes this software non-free.
On Fri, Jun 16, 2000 at 08:09:42PM +0100, James Troup wrote:
> Andrew Lenharth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > >From the copyright:
> > >| If you wish to integrate it with any other
> > >| software system which is not GPL'd, without integrating it into an
> > >| operating system kernel, then you
> I think I understand what the license is trying to say (that non-GPL
> licenses are available from the author, if you don't want to be bound
> by the terms of the GPL?), but the way it's currently worded is
> incredibly sloppy and fails the DFSG.
Then we have an interesting problem. This has al
Andrew Lenharth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >From the copyright:
> >| If you wish to integrate it with any other
> >| software system which is not GPL'd, without integrating it into an
> >| operating system kernel, then you must obtain an additional license.
> >This makes this software non-free.
> > Frankly, I think license this only needs a one word change (instead of
> > "non-GPL", make it "non-GPLable" or "incompatible with GPL") to remove
> > all ambiguity. However, we have every right to modify and redistribute
> > the kernel, should we deem it necessary.
On Fri, Jun 16, 2000 at 11
On Fri, Jun 16, 2000 at 05:00:38PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 16, 2000 at 12:22:26PM -0700, Andrew Lenharth wrote:
> > Then we have an interesting problem. This has already been discussed
> > on the linux kernel list. There consensus was it is consistant and
> > still free. At one poi
On Fri, Jun 16, 2000 at 12:22:26PM -0700, Andrew Lenharth wrote:
> Then we have an interesting problem. This has already been discussed
> on the linux kernel list. There consensus was it is consistant and
> still free. At one point, either 2.4 or 2.6, this code will be in the
> kernel. Do we move
>From the copyright:
>| If you wish to integrate it with any other
>| software system which is not GPL'd, without integrating it into an
>| operating system kernel, then you must obtain an additional license.
>This makes this software non-free. If you disagree with this
>analysis, please take it u
On Fri, 16 Jun 2000, Brian Behlendorf wrote:
> > I think I understand what the license is trying to say (that non-GPL
> > licenses are available from the author, if you don't want to be bound
> > by the terms of the GPL?), but the way it's currently worded is
> > incredibly sloppy and fails the D
On 16 Jun 2000, James Troup wrote:
> > >From the copyright:
> > >| If you wish to integrate it with any other
> > >| software system which is not GPL'd, without integrating it into an
> > >| operating system kernel, then you must obtain an additional license.
> > >This makes this software non-free
On Fri, Jun 16, 2000 at 08:09:42PM +0100, James Troup wrote:
> Andrew Lenharth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > >From the copyright:
> > >| If you wish to integrate it with any other
> > >| software system which is not GPL'd, without integrating it into an
> > >| operating system kernel, then yo
> I think I understand what the license is trying to say (that non-GPL
> licenses are available from the author, if you don't want to be bound
> by the terms of the GPL?), but the way it's currently worded is
> incredibly sloppy and fails the DFSG.
Then we have an interesting problem. This has a
Andrew Lenharth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >From the copyright:
> >| If you wish to integrate it with any other
> >| software system which is not GPL'd, without integrating it into an
> >| operating system kernel, then you must obtain an additional license.
> >This makes this software non-free
>From the copyright:
>| If you wish to integrate it with any other
>| software system which is not GPL'd, without integrating it into an
>| operating system kernel, then you must obtain an additional license.
>This makes this software non-free. If you disagree with this
>analysis, please take it
30 matches
Mail list logo
