On Sun, Jun 15, 2003 at 08:10:12PM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote:
> I look forward to read a draft of the GPL v3, since Hans Reiser did
> mention that the equivalent of 'Invariant Sections' would be added
> in the forthcoming GPL v3.
>
> Reiser's statement was inaccurate. For GPL ver
On Sun, Jun 15, 2003 at 01:28:18PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> The first question seems to be the more important one to this
> discussion, since being able to use/compile/edit the software is more
> fundamental than being able to redistribute it in modified form.
FWIW, I disagree with this prio
RMS said:
>Reiser's statement was inaccurate. For GPL version 3 we are
>considering requirements for preserving certain limited author
>information in the source code, and making explicit that other
>GPL-compatible licenses that are present on parts of the code cannot
>be removed from the source,
I look forward to read a draft of the GPL v3, since Hans Reiser did
mention that the equivalent of 'Invariant Sections' would be added
in the forthcoming GPL v3.
Reiser's statement was inaccurate. For GPL version 3 we are
considering requirements for preserving certain limited author
Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The FSF is set up as a charitable corporation, which means its board is
> self-perpetuating. [...]
Please, pick one topic and stick with it. Do you really think that any
common form of accountability mechanism would have made any difference to
this s
On Sun, Jun 15, 2003 at 07:47:32PM +0100, J.D. Hood wrote:
> I suggest that the definition of 'preferred form for
> making modifications' be information-theoretical.
>
> When source code is compiled into binary code there is a
> loss of information, as indicated by the fact that you
> cannot get t
On Sun, Jun 15, 2003 at 05:15:14PM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
> Why? What real-world problem does this solve? Have we actually run
> into situations where it was not obvious in a particular instance what
> the preferred form for modifications was?
I know of one thorny problem in this area: many g
> "J" == J D Hood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
J> I suggest that the definition of 'preferred form for making
J> modifications' be information-theoretical.
Why? What real-world problem does this solve? Have we actually run
into situations where it was not obvious in a particular inst
I suggest that the definition of 'preferred form for
making modifications' be information-theoretical.
When source code is compiled into binary code there is a
loss of information, as indicated by the fact that you
cannot get the original source back, given only the binary
code.
On the other hand
On Fri, Jun 13, 2003 at 12:57:13AM -0400, Greg Pomerantz wrote:
> Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I would say that the controlling preference is that of the person who
> > last modified the Work and distributed it in that modified form. Anyone
> > downstream from that person would
Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> OK, so there's lots of argument about "preferred form".
>
> How about a more negative "definition":
>
> Deliberately obfusticated or encrypted forms and program-generated forms
> are *not* preferred forms for making modifications.
So we can't use indent,
On Sunday, Jun 15, 2003, at 12:45 US/Eastern, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Deliberately obfusticated or encrypted forms and program-generated
forms
are *not* preferred forms for making modifications.
Program-generated forms can become the preferred form. Its certainly
possible to use something
RMS said:
>GPL 3 is not at the stage to ask for public comments.
Rumor has it that it will contain loads of stuff which Debian considers
non-free. This is a *problem*.
The FDL public comment period resulted in *no* significant changes due
to the public comments.
RMS has declared that he has
On Saturday, Jun 14, 2003, at 07:03 US/Eastern, Richard Braakman
That's a lot easier than "Here's a Debian CD. And here's my solemn
promise to provide source CDs for this Debian version to anyone who
asks for the next three years. Please wait while I go buy a CD
burner."
(Note that 2(c) is
>4) The freedom to change the Work for any purpose[1], to distribute
> one's changes, and to distribute the Work in modified form. Access
> to the form of the work which is preferred for making modifications,
> if applicable, is a precondition for this.
OK, so there's lots of argument about
Can someone remind me how exactly the license above is incompatible with
the GNU GPL?
Each one is a copyleft. The GPL says the combined work must be under
the GPL. The simple license says the combined work must be under that
license. Both cannot be true at once.
GPL 3 is not at the stage to ask for public comments.
The idea of writing a single license for both software and
documentation (i.e., for "content") is a good one. Perhaps
this could be done in GPL version 4. I would hope that in
extending it, the beauty of the current GPL is preserved.
What is beautiful about the GPL is that it grants the licensee
On Sat, Jun 07, 2003 at 01:08:21PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 06, 2003 at 02:25:45PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > > Other than that issue, I think this would nicely address Debian's needs.
> > > > I'm pleased to see MySQL AB taking this step to clarify the license of
> > > >
19 matches
Mail list logo
